s»«9r,": 



ml 



ii 



0* s'*^'* ^> 




4 O 














0° .^^ 






-f 



^oV^ 






^.^ '^^ 



,X O. 










-^0 



"v^, 



-^ q 



;> 









'bV 



-^■ 



^^0^ 



♦ TC^^.tV," ^ 



^oV 




.\ -?.. .^ 



NARRATIVE 

OF THE 

PROCEEDINGS 

OF THE 

MONTHLY MEETING OF NEW-YORK, 

AND THEIR 

SUBSEQUENT CONFIRMATION 

B Y THE 

QUARTERLY AND YEARLY MEETINGS, 

INTHECASEOF 

ISAAC T. HOPPER. 



" Upright men shall be astonished at this, and the innocent shall stir up 
himself against the hypocrite.". ..Job .xvii. 8. 

" Abhor detraction, the sin of fallen angels and the worst of fallen men." 

William Penn. 



N E W - Y O R K : 

PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR 
M DCCC XLIII. 






H. lUEWIO, PRIKTIB 
79 Vese»-8t.. N. V. 



NARRATIVE, &c 



The arraignment and subsequent disownment of 
Charles Marriott, James S. Gibbons, and myself, 
by the Monthly Meeting of New- York, having given 
rise to much misrepresentation, and having also 
created considerable speculation and excitement in 
different parts of the country, I have thought it right 
to give a brief history of my case, and some facts 
connected with it. Upon much reflection, I have 
believed such a course is due to myself, and to the 
Society of Friends, with which I have been con- 
nected, and which I have sincerely loved from an 
early period of my life. 

On the morning of the 29th of third month, 1841, 
I was called upon by Amos Willets, who requested 
me to meet the overseers of the Monthly Meeting 
of New-York on the evening of the same day, 
at Hester-street Meeting-house. My son-in-law 
James S. Gibbons, had received a similar request 
from another overseer. Charles Marriott was absent 
from the city. We met accordingly, and instead of 
finding the overseers of Hester-street Preparative 
Meeting merely, we were surprised to find assem- 
bled those of the other two Preparative Meetings, 
viz. Rose-street and Brooklyn. There were pre- 
1 



sent on this occasion, Amos Willets, Thomas Car- 
penter, and Stephen Valentine, of Hester-street ; 
George T. Trimble, Robert Hicks, and Nathaniel 
S. Merritt, of Rose-street ; and Richard Field and 
John Leggett, of Brooklyn. The interview lasted 
not quite an hour and a half. 

The cause of our being thus arraigned was an 
Article which had appeared in the " National Anti- 
Slavery Standard," of the 25th of the same month. 
The interview was wholly devoted to the ascertain- 
ment of the character and extent of our connection 
with that paper. They neither reasoned nor re- 
monstrated with us — they did not advise us, nor did 
they give us any opinion in relation to the matter 
for which they had arraigned us. They agreed to 
take our cases to the Preparative Meeting before 
they separated, and the next morning, in less than 
fifteen hours after this interview, one half of which 
"was probably spent in sleep, we were informed of 
their determination. 

On the ] St day of fourth month, my case was ac- 
cordingly taken to the Meeting. I was present. 
After a portion of the regular business had been 
attended to, Amos Willets remarked, that, as Isaac 
T. Hopper's case was to be introduced to the Meet- 
ing, he thought he had better withdraw. I remarked 
in reply that, until the case was introduced, I had 
the right to remain, and I should remain. Amos 
then observed, that such a course was unusual. I 
Replied, in substance, that my course was not to be 



governed by what others might have done, and that 
I should avail myself of the privilege granted by the 
Discipline. The clerk for the day then read as 
follows : — 

"Isaac T. Hopper is charged with being con- 
cerned in the support and publication of a paper 
which has a tendency to excite discord and disunity 
among us." After a short pause I rose, and, as 
nearly as I can remember, remarked as follows. 

" I am growing to be an old man. Seventy win- 
ters have already passed over my head, and it is not 
likely that I shall see many more. I love the So- 
ciety of Friends, and its principles, and its testimo- 
nies ; and particularly the doctrine of the Inward 
Light, which I have endeavoured to make the rule 
of my life, and which I can now say is the confidence 
and support of my declining years. 

" I have been a diligent attender of our meetings 
for many years — I have fell a deep and abiding in- 
terest in the Society, and have honestly laboured 
for its welfare according to my ability. On the 
present occasion I can say — -and I feel thankful that 
it is so — that I have no unkind feelings towards any 
one. I am also thankful that I can say with reve- 
rence, and in some degree of humility, I believe 
in the doctrine of Scripture : ' If our hearts con^ 
demn us, God is greater than our hearts and know- 
eth all things : but if our hearts condemn us not, 
then have we confidence towards God,' Having 
|,his confidence I fear no evil." 



I was now about to leave the meeting, when a 
friend said he wished to say a few words before I 
left. I observed to him that if he had an}'^ thing to 
say to me he had better do it private!}^, but if it was 
for the meeting, I did not wish to hear it. I then 
left the house. I was afterwards informed that he 
proposed that the meeting should return the case to 
the overseers, and appoint a committee to unite 
with them in re-considering the subject. This sug- 
gestion created considerable discussion, and occu- 
pied the meeting for about an hour and a half, and 
seemed likely to prevail, when Amos Willets and 
Thomas Carpenter, two of the overseers, said they 
should decline having any thing more to do with 
the case ; upon which it was ordered to be foward- 
ed to the Monthly Meeting. 

It is proper that I should here pause in my ac- 
count of the proceedings of the Monthly Meeting, 
and refer to some facts and circumstances which 
have had a tendency to bring the Society in this 
city into its present difficulties. 

The American Anti-Slavery Society was formed 
in the latter end of the year 1833. Many respecta- 
ble persons joined it, and its influence was soon felt 
in the community, and in order to counteract their 
efforts, a meeting of the citizens was called by the 
following advertisement, which was published in 
the Journal of Commerce, on the 26th of eighth 
month, 1835 : — 



5 

Public Meeting. — The undersigned, citizens of 
New-York, having witnessed with regret the con- 
duct of some imported travelhng incendiaries, as- 
sisted in their attempts to create sectional jealousies 
by a few misguided native fanatics ; and being 
anxious to prove that these individuals constitute but 
a very small portion of this community — to con- 
vince our Southern brethren that we are ever sin- 
cerely desirous to cultivate the most friendly and 
honourable intercourse with them — to disclaim and 
deprecate, in the most unqualified terms, any inter- 
ference with their constitutional rights on the slave 
question, and to assure them that this city is de- 
cidedly hostile to the movements of the Abolition 
faction, — do hereby invite a public meeting of the 
citizens to be held at the City Hall, on Tuesday 
next, the 27th inst,, at 4 o'clock p. m., for the pur- 
pose of adopting such resolutions on this subject as 
may be thought proper and expedient. 

This call, than which it is difficult to conceive of 
any thing more inflammatory, was signed by many, 
among whom were several members of the Society 
of Friends, some of whom seemed to be much 
alarmed lest their business should suffer by their 
being identified with abolitionists. They seemed to 
Imve no scruples in joining with others in opposing 
the measures of the friends of human liberty, but 
they considered it very objectionable to mix with 
others in pleading for the oppressed. I have never 
1* 



heard that those persons who signed the call were 
ever censured for the part they took in this matter. 

This fear was not very remarkable when it is 
remembered, that many Friends were largely en- 
gaged in dealing in the produce of slave labour, and 
" by this craft have their wealth ;" and some actually 
had business establishments in the South, It was 
not long before cautions were given in our meetings, 
particularly those for disciplinary purposes, against 
joining any associations, the members whereof were 
not of our religious communion. The Society was 
evidently losing ground in relation to its testimony 
against slavery. This being the case, some mem- 
bers felt it to be their duty to hold up this testimony 
more conspicuously and efficiently than it had been 
of latter time, and the subject was several times in- 
troduced to the attention of Friends in the Meeting 
for Sufferings, and the Yearly Meeting. An effort 
to bring the subject before these meetings was fre- 
quently attended with much excitement, and without 
any thing being done to advance the testimony. 

Seeing that Friends as a body would not move 
forward in this concern) and being unwilling to in- 
terrupt the harmony of the Society, a few Friends 
met in this city, and formed an Anti-Slavery So- 
ciety, which they called " Tlie New-York Associa- 
tion of Friends, for the relief of those held in slavery, 
and the improvement of the free people of colour." 
This Association was confined solely to members 
of the Society. It moved on harmoniously within 



itself, and while it afforded an opportunity for 
Friends to unite in its objects and purposes with- 
out mixing witii those not members of the Society 
of Friends, it could give no just cause of offence 
to any. But we soon had evidence that could not 
be misunderstood, that it was no less offensive to 
many members of the Society, than the American 
Anti-Slavery Society. We were deprived of the 
privilege of holding our meetings in the Meeting- 
houses ; and one Friend, in the station of a minis- 
ter said, he would as soon go to the theatre as to 
attend any of the meetings of our Association. At 
another time, he said, that he w'ould as lief a politi- 
cal meeting should be held in the Meeting-house, 
as that this Association should be permitted to meet 
in it. 

The Anti-Slavery Societies were frequently al- 
luded to in our public meetings in very harsh and 
offensive terms. Believing that many had joined 
these Societies from pure intentions, and that they 
acted from motives the most conscientious, I often 
folt it to be my duty to express my disapprobation 
of such attacks, as they appeared to me to be a 
gross infringement upon the civil and religious 
rights of a large body of excellent individuals ; 
hence I soon found myself placed among the pro^ 
scribed. 

It soon became very evident that a determination 
existed in the minds of some members of the So- 
ciety of Friends to discountenance, and, if possible, 



8 

to crush every effort to carry forward the testimony 
against slavery. An Anti-Abolition party soon ex- 
hibited itself arrayed for battle, and various kinds 
of contrivances v^^ere put in operation to accomplish 
their purposes. Measures were taken, not only to 
prevent individuals from bearing their testimony 
against the traffic in human flesh and blood, but no 
stone was suffered to remain unturned to dissuade 
those who had been faithful to their convictions of 
right and duty, to turn from their course and join the 
ranks of proscription and persecution. 

These efforts were not without a degree of suc- 
cess. The character of the ministry soon gave 
evidence of a change of opinion and feeling in regard 
to the important testimony against slavery. One 
Friend residing in the neighbourhood of the city of 
New-York, who, though possessed of the gifts and 
qualifications of a minister in quite a moderate de- 
gree, yet had made herself useful and acceptable ac- 
cording to her measure, for several years advocated 
the cause of the oppressed in her public discourses ; 
and would frequently advert to the example of Elias 
Hicks to give force and sanction to her sentiments. 
This individual attended a meeting for ministers 
and elders in the city of Philadelphia, a few years 
since, in which she bore her testimony against 
slavery in a most unqualified manner, and entreated 
her hearers with much apparent sincerity to embark 
with renewed energy in the righteous cause. She 
liad considerable intercourse with those who were. 



9 

zealously engaged in the Anti-Slavery cause, and 
earnestly pressed a distinguished Anti-Slavery lec- 
turer, not a member of the Society of Friends, to 
visit her at her house, and encouraged him to per- 
severe in his labours. This individual suddenly 
changed her opinions and conduct, and became, so 
far as her abilities and influence would admit, a most 
ardent opposer of the principles and cause which 
she had so zealously laboured to support. Instead 
of confining herself to the sphere which truth and 
nature had designed for her, the character of her 
once plain simple communications changed to what 
seemed to be laboured imitations of sermons which 
were likely to be popular, and which were fraught 
with virulent attacks upon the Anti-Slavery cause, 
and those engaged in it. The character of the min- 
istry was thus ignobly disgraced and brought into 
contempt. This friend, it is presumed, claimed 
divine authority as her rule of action in these two 
contrarient courses of conduct. As she could not 
be right in both, there is no better way to decide 
the matter than to look at their respective fruits 
and their effects on the character and spirit of the 
individual. 

The zeal against the cause of Emancipation grew 
warmer and warmer, and those who felt an interest 
and whose duty led them to use their endeavours 
to advance it, were denounced in our meetings for 
worship in epithets and anathemas the most vile 
and sarcastic, and which could alone proceed from 



10 

a bitter spirit, and could be sanctioned only by a de- 
praved and vulgar laste. A minister of the New-York 
Monthly Meeting, whoso course has rendered him 
somewhat conspicuous in the late agitation which 
has taken place in the Society, was in the frequent 
habit of indulging himself in this way. In his 
communications, he would frequently denounce the 
friends of human liberty as " servants of the devil," 
"vile emissaries of Satan," "howling wolves, too 
famished to bile," " contemptible reptiles," " house- 
hold vermin," " too la^y to work, ashamed to beg, 
and some of them afraid to steal ;" " that if they 
could, they would raise up out of their graves the 
dead bodies of the inhnliitants of old Babylon and 
Sodom and (xomorrah, and receive them with open 
arms as worthy coadjutors in their works of popu- 
lar righteousness." In addition to these disgrace- 
ful denunciations, which no well-regulated mind 
could hear in a religious meeing without disgust, 
there was much other indecent matter of a simi- 
lar character, Views and sentiments were fre- 
quently uttered by the same individual highly 
injurious and immoral in their tendency, and of 
course wholly irrational and unscriptural, and at 
variance with the fundamental principles and opin- 
ions advocated by the Society of Friends from 
their first rise. This sort of preaching received the 
most unmingled approbation of a large number of 
the most active and influential members of the 
Monthly Meeting of New-York, and was sanctioned 



11 

by them as the fruit of immediate divine inspiration. 
For, at this time, when this minister would ask for 
a minute to visit distant meetings, it was furnished 
to him, certifying that he was a minister in unity 
— the Meeting thus endorsing all the extravagant 
abuse and vituperation and fallacy alluded to. I 
am aware that with many persons who are situated 
beyond the limits of the agitation which has lately 
befallen our portion of the Society of Friends, it 
will be difficult to credit the statement, that such 
preaching would be tolerated by people making a 
religious profession ; but the facts are too notorious 
to be denied. The friends of human liberty were 
not the only objects of this kind of intolerance, per- 
secution and virulent abuse. Temperance Socie- 
ties, and those professing the principles of non-re- 
sistance, were frequently included within the circle 
of defamation and detraction, and were alike the 
objects of ridicule, slander and misrepresentations 
Statements were frequently made respecting these 
persons and their associations, which were as far from 
the truth as the spirit and disposition which dictated 
them were beneath the legitimate functions of a pure, 
enlightened, useful and dignified gospel ministry. 
Our religious meetings, instead of being seasons of 
quiet and useful meditation, affording means of spi- 
ritual refreshment, became arenas for exciting and 
violent communications, in which the most un- 
provoked insult, wholesale denunciation, abuse, 
irony, sarcasm, bitterness and misrepresentation 



12 

seemed to vie wilh each other for the pre-eminence. 
These meetings were attended by some, from long 
habit ; by others, because of a species of infatuation 
and man-worship admiration for the declaimer ; by 
others, whose consciences received quiet and rest 
from the palliations which were offered to sin and 
iniquity ; and by many whose curiosity was excited 
to witness for themselves, the extent to which these 
fallacies and abominations could be carried in a 
meeting of professing Friends. 

This kind of preaching was continued for several 
years. It rarely happened that a meeting was suf- 
fered to pass over without the utterance of some of 
these opprobrious allusions ; many of which were 
frequently so pointed and personal, that it was readily 
understood to whom they were intended to apply. 
And it may easily be conceived how such a course 
of conduct was calculated to affect the usefulness 
of the Society and the harmony of its members. 

So far as relates to myself, I may say, without 
meaning to assume undue credit, that I have learn- 
ed so many lessons in the school of persecution and 
affliction, that I could patiently have borne these 
most unrighteous and unprovoked inflictions, though 
no one who felt an interest in the welfare of the So- 
ciety of Friends, could be a witness of such disor- 
der without fear and deep sorrow. It was evident 
that unless this current of evil could be repressed, 
much that was good in the Society would be lost in 
the whirlpool, which bitterness, untempered zeal, 



13 

wild and preposterous accusations, on the one hand, 
and supineness and disaffection on the other, would 
surely occasion. Here were large and unoffending 
bodies of individuals, tinae after time, made the ob- 
jects of censure and false representation, in meet- 
ings which were open to all, and attended by a large 
number of persons. In the Very nature of things, 
it could hardly be expected that no effort would be 
made by those who had thus been injured, to relieve 
themselves from the effects of the slander and injury 
heaped upon them. The Society of Friends are 
the last people who should expect from others a 
tame acquiescence under false accusations, not only 
in regard to principles, but facts and motives. If 
they will quietly permit their meetings to be thus 
prostituted, they are among the last who should 
look for an escape from correction and rebuke. 
Where their motives or principles have been the 
objects of misrepresentation or misconception on the 
part of others, where they have been vilified either 
by the pen or the tongue, or where the pulpit has 
been made subservient to the unhallowed design of 
falsehood and proscription, they have ever since 
their first organization been bold in the use of the 
tongue and the press, and have spared no effort to 
rescue themselves and theji good name from the 
fangs of the reviler. 

In consequence of some of the misrepresentations 
alluded to, a correspondence took place between 
O. Johnson and George F. White, the minister to 
2 



14 

ivhom allusion has been made. This correspond- 
ence was long, and was published by the former in 
pamphlet form ; and as the excitement had by this 
time progressed to other portions of the Society, 
there was a most extensive demand for it. This 
circumstance alarmed and greatly excited the ad- 
herents of George F. White, as it placed matters in a 
position not at all creditable to the defamer. It eli- 
cited from Friends in different parts of the country 
severe animadversion. Two documents were issued 
from Ohio, severely censuring the spirit and con- 
duct manifested by George F. White. One of these 
was signed by about fifty individuals. 

The Monthly Meeting of Peru, in this State, 
issued the following Minute, addressed to the 
Monthly Meeting of New-York. 

" To New- York Monthly Meeting of Friends. 

"Dear Friends. — This Meeting was dipped into 
a feeling and painful exercise by the introduction of 
a subject that appears to be fast spreading before 
the public, through the medium of various periodi- 
cals, as having transpired among you, and published 
to the world in a pamphlet, recently put out by 
Oliver Johnson, of the city of New-York, purport- 
ing to be a correspondf^Aice between himself and 
George F. White, a member of your Meeting, by 
which our Friend is presented to the public in a 
pcisition, (considering his standing and well-known 
mfluence among us,) calculated to bring reproach 



15 

upon Society, unless speedily refuted if false, or 
disapproved if true. 

"Which exercise, after a full and free expression 
of sentiment had been feelingly engaged in, resulted 
in a conclusion to transmit to you the foregoing 
address. 

" With the salutation of love, we remain your 
Friends. 

" Signed in and on behalf of Peru Monthly Meet- 
ing of Friends, in the State of Nevvr-York, the 29th 
of 4th mo. 1841. 

" WiLLETS Keese, Clerk.^^ 

When this document was read in the Meeting to 
which it was addressed, such was the hostility felt 
towards those who did not approve of the course 
pursued by the object of their adulation, that an 
elder proposed that it should be " thrown under the 
table." 

The " Correspondence " having had a very wide 
circulation, it became necessar}^, in the opinion of 
some of the members of New- York Monthly Meet- 
ing, to do something to save George F. White 
and his friends from the reproach which their con- 
duct had brought upon them. To affect this pur- 
pose as far as it was possible, a letter was pre- 
pared in the city of New-York, which was signed 
by Robert Hicks, and addressed to a Friend in Ohio. 
This letter denies the correctness of the printed 
" Correspondence," and says, in reference to it, that 



16 

there are many alterations, omissions and additions, 
but it did not specify what they were, nor has it 
ever been shown since. Tliese assertions were 
incorrect, and there is no foundation for the state- 
ment. For a total disregard of truth, this letter, 
perhaps, stands unequalled by anything emanating 
from any individuals professing to be respectable. 
It was circulated through the country pretty exten^ 
sively for about five months before we were able to 
procure a copy of it. As soon as a copy was ob- 
tained, it was published in the National Anti-Slavery 
Standard, and its many misstatements and perversions 
exposed and refuted. In this letter, it is insinuated 
that, although Oliver Johnson is ostensibly so, yet 
James S. Gibbons and myself are the real authors 
of the " Correspondence ;" and it is further said) 
that it is not doubted that the former is a mere tool 
employed by the latter, to do that which, as mem- 
bers of the Society, they dare not do themselves. 
These charges and insinuations, thus clandestinely 
circulated, were as void of truth as they were cow- 
ardly and malicious ; and, until they were refuted, 
had some effect in exciting prejudice against us., 
and particularly myself. Fo7' this letter, see Ap- 
pendix A. 

Some months after the "Correspondence" between 
Oliver Johnson and George F. White was publish- 
ed, the former attended Rose-street Meeting, of 
which he thus speaks in an editorial article in the 
Standard, of 3d mo. 25th, 1841. 



17 

" On Wednesday of last week, we attended 
Rose-street meeting. In his (G. F. White's) ser- 
mon on lliat day, after stating the general principle, 
that men are humbled and subdued by suffering, 
and referring to the judgments of God upon Pha- 
raoh as a case in point, he gave an illustration, 
which we will repeat as nearly as we can recollect, 
in his own words : — ' Just as a slave, recently, who 
had suffered the effects of his criminal conduct, and 
been thus led to calm reflection, chose to go back 
into slavery with his master, and to endure all the 
evils of that condition, notwithstanding his former 
experience of them, rather than stay with those 
hypocritical workers of popular righteousness who 
had interfered in his behalf. For my own part, I 
commend his choice. I had a thousand times rather 
be a slave, and spend my days with slave-holders, 
than to dwell in companionship with abolitionists.' 

" This was an allusion, which every one present 
miderstood, to the case of Thomas Hughes, for- 
merly the slave of John P. Darg, whose history is 
given in our columns to-day, by Isaac T. Hopper, 
as No. xvi. of his ' Tales of Oppression.' It was 
also understood and intended as a thrust at Isaac 
T. Hopper, who went to Sing Sing to act the part 
of the good Samaritan, by informing Tom that he 
was free, and offering him protection. 

" But it was not true that Tom Hughes went 
back to the South as a slave. For this reason, we 
deemed it our duty, at the close of the sermon, to 



18 

rise and say — ' Tom Hughes, formerly the slave of 
John P. Darg, on his release from prison recently, 
returned with his master to the South, not as a 
SLAVE, preferring slavery to freedom, but as a free 
MAN, under a promise of being permitted to enjoy 
his liberty and to live with his wife. I state this 
to prevent misapprehension." 

The article from which the foregoing extracts are 
made, was headed, " Rare specimen of a Quaker 
preacher," and was the ostensible cause of the pro- 
ceedings against James S. Gibbons, Charles Mar- 
riott and myself. See Appendix B. 

My case (and also that of James S. Gibbons) was 
introduced into the Monthly Meeting on the 7th of 
4th mo. 1841. William C. White, Richard Crom- 
well, Dobel Baker, and John J. Merritt, were ap- 
pointed a Committee to treat with us severally. 
This Committee met me at my house on the 13tb. 
My wife was present at the interview. I admitted 
that 1 was concerned in the publication and support 
of the National Anti-Slavery Standard ; but I con- 
tended that it was not of the character imputed to 
it in the charge against me : and this I considered 
the proper issue. 

I informed them that I was a member of the Exe- 
cutive Committee, who had the supervision of the 
paper alluded to, but that supervision extended no 
further than to procure the funds and select an 
editor. That in making a selection, we were care- 
ful to chose a person of good moral character, of 



19 

adequate acquirements, and who was in principle 
an Abolitionist ; but that we never undertook to 
instruct or control hira as to what he should write, 
and that his essays were never submitted to the 
inspection of the Committee. One of the Com- 
mittee then exhibited a copy of the Standard, con- 
taining the article upon which the charge was 
founded. I informed them that I had not read it 
until I had been called upon by one of the over- 
seers ; that soon after it appeared, I had read part 
of it, and upon finding its character, I put the paper 
in my pocket, took it home to my wife, and re- 
quested her to read it, and put it away where the 
family would not see it. I asked the Committee if 
there was any thing in the article that was not true 1 
One of them replied, there was. I desired him to 
point out the part that was not true, for he was the 
first person whom I had heard make such an alle- 
gation. He said it was libelous ; that George F. 
White did not exhibit ferocity in his manner, as 
stated in the piece. I replied, that was a matter of 
opinion about which people might differ, 

I stated to them, that whatever disunity exist- 
ed among us, was justly to be attributed to the 
preaching of George F. White. That in his public 
discourses, he applied epithets to Abolitionists and 
others, that would not be tolerated in a political 
meeting, and that it was unreasonable to suppose 
the false charges he was in the habit of making 
would pass without answer or rebuke. Three of 



/ 
/ 



20 

the Committee expressed their full unity with the 
speaker, and that they considered that he was di- 
vinely inspired when he uttered the epithets and 
denunciations complained of. Towards the close 
of this interview, two of the Committee had left, 
when one of those who remained remarked, that all 
who supported the Standard ought to be disowned. 
I rephed, that if that suggestion were carried out, 
they would have to disown several hundred mem- 
bers of the Society of Friends, among whom were 
a large number of ministers and elders of high stand- 
ing. He said he would disown them all, though 
there should not be five left. It is due to the indi- 
vidual to state, that subsequently he qualified his 
assertion as to those whom he would have disown- 
ed. I stated to the Committee, that while I had 
no objections to the facts that actually occurred in 
the Society of Friends being pubhshed in the 
Standard, I had objections to their being accom- 
panied by any invidious remarks. 

On the 21st of the 5th mo. two of the Committee 
called on me, and inquired if I wanted to see them 
again ? I replied, that I had no business with them, 
and of course no desire to see them ; but if they 
wished to see me, I had no objection to their call- 
ing on me. 

After some desultory conversation on the subject 
of their visit, I remarked, that I was much more 
tried with some of the views and sentiments of 
George F. White, as advocated in his public dis- 



21 

courses, than I was with the epithets and denuncia- 
tions which he so frequently apphed to Abohtionists. 
That the latter were of but light impression, and 
miglit pass off without harming any body ; but the 
former were calculated, so far as they were re- 
ceived, to do immense mischief. The balance of 
the interview was consumed chiefly by one of the 
Committee in expressing his most unqualified ap- 
probation of George F. White's sentiments and 
ministry. He said that he believed him to be di- 
vinely authorized to make the statements which he 
sometimes made in his preaching. And after fur-; 
iher conversation upon much that was irrelevant to 
the case, he stated that he thanked his Heavenly 
Father that he had lived to the day and date that 
George F. White preached. When this individual 
was expressing himself so strongly as to the preacher 
being divinely authorized to make certain state 
ments respecting the Abolitionists and non-resist 
ants, which, I observed, had been proved to be un- 
true, the other remarked that he could not go quite 
so far as that. 

In the fifth month, the Committee made a writ- 
ten report in my case. From what T could learn, 
I believed it was not strictly correct in all its parts, 
and I requested the clerk to ask the Monthly Meet- 
ing, on my behalf, for a copy of it. He accordingly 
made the application, but it was refused. Amos 
Willets, Thomas Carpenter, and one or two others 
objecting to it. The gross injustice of this denial 



22 

is so palpable as to render any comment unne 
cessary. 

I may here pause in my account of the proceed^ 
ings of the Monthly Meeting, after saying that upon 
being informed that I was disowned, I notified the 
Meeting that 1 should appeal ; when Richard Field, 
George T. Trimble, Thomas Carpenter, Richard 
Cromwell, Samuel Willets, and John J. Merritt, 
were appointed to attend the Quarterly Meeting 
with the minutes and proceedings of the Monthly 
Meeting in my case. This Committee I shall call 
Respondents.* 

The case came before Westbury Quarterly Meet- 
ing in the tenth month, 1841. A short time before 
that meeting was held, I was informed that Friends 
in the city of New- York had determined that no 
jnember of the " Association of Friends for the re^ 
lief of those held in Slavery," &c. should be per- 
mitted to serve on the Committee in my case. I 
discovered that the New-York Friends intended to 
carry their own views into the Quarterly Meeting, 
and spare no exertion to gain their point. 

Before I was called into the Quarterly Meeting, 
such a proposition was made, but was overruled by 
the meeting. During the appointment of the Com- 
mittee, one Friend asked to be excused from serving 

* In proceedings upon appeals in the Society of Friends in 
England, the term Respondents is used in this way. As it is a 
convenient term, I shall adopt it here. 



23 

on it, on the ground of bis being a member of the 
Association which had been alluded to. I then in- 
quired whether the meeting had concluded to reject 
such ? After a short pause, Samuel Willets, the 
clerk, rose and said : " As the organ of this meet- 
ing, I think the meeting had better proceed with the 
business." I was at a loss to determine how, as 
the organ of the meeting, he could announce its 
decision before any individual in it had expressed 
an opinion upon the subject. The follow'ing Friends 
were then appointed : — Samuel Mott, of Cowneck ; 
William Willets, Isaac Rushmore, Jacob Valentine, 
and Joseph L. Townsend, of Westbury Monthly 
Meeting ; John Wilhs, Willet Robins, Selah Hubbs, 
Samuel J. TTnderhill, and Williams Willets, of Jericho 
Monthly Meeting ; Samuel Pearsall, Gilbert Law- 
rence, Samuel Bowne, Silas Hicks, and James 
Byrd, of Flushing Monthly Meeting ; and Thomas 
A. Green, of Nantucket Monthly Meetings there 
being no other Friend from that meeting present. 

The Committee, with the exception of one mem- 
ber, met on the same afternoon at the Meeting- 
house in Flushing. After the Respondents and 
myself had been fully heard, we left the Committee 
to deliberate upon the case. They remained to- 
gether a considerable time, and adjourned to meet 
again in the city of New-York, on the afternoon of 
the day preceding the next Quarterly Meeting. 

It will be seen by a statement which I made to 
the Yearly Meeting Committee, and which was not 



24 

denied, that the overseers never laboured with James 
S. Gibbons or myself, previously to our cases being 
taken to the preparative meeting, other than merely 
to question us as to the facts relating to our con- 
nection with the Standard, &c. This being the 
case, they were very fearful that the Committee of 
the Quarterly Meeting would think the regular com- 
plaint was of itself insufficient to justify their pro- 
ceedings against us. Under this view of the case, 
the overseers privately manufactured a document 
which was read to several of the Committee of the 
Quarterly Meeting while the cases were pending ; 
and a copy of it was sent to one of their number on 
Long Island, where all of them, except one, resided. 
This document they called an " Explanation " of 
our cases. It will be my duty to speak of it freely 
hereafter, when I explain its character. I should 
be glad were I able to insert it here ; but it was 
most carefully, and with palpable and character- 
istic injustice kept from me, though it was the woi'k 
of the overseers, and declared to be official. 

When the Quarterly Meeting met, the Committee 
in my case made a report, confirming the decision 
of the Monthly Meeting, which was signed by Samuel 
Mott, Joseph L. Townsend, John Willis, Willet 
Robins, Selah Hubbs, Samuel J. Underbill, Gilbert 
Lawrence, Samuel Bowne, and Silas Hicks. The 
name of Williams Willets was also attached to the 
report. This was not done by himself, as he was 
sick at the time, and did not attend the last meeting 



of the Committee ; yet his name was affixed as 
though he had signed it with his own hand. 

I am more than willing to leave those individuals 
who signed the report to their own reflections. They 
know best how far they acted in accordance with 
their own convictions of right and justice. That 
some of them would be glad of an opportunity to 
undo what they have done, I have the best of all 
reasons for believing. It will be proper to allude 
to this subject hereafter. 

While my case was under discussion in the 
Quarterly Meeting, the members of New- York 
Monthly Meeting claimed the right, and actually 
exercised it, to take an active part in the proceed- 
ings. Such conduct, 1 believe, was never before 
countenanced, nor even tolerated in the Society of 
Friends. The injustice and absurdity of it must be 
plain to the most superficial observer. 

At the succeeding Quarterly Meeting, informa- 
tion was given that I intended to appeal ; when the 
following persons were appointed, on its behalf, to 
attend the Yearly Meeting as Respondents, viz. : 

Nathaniel S. Merritt, Robert Seaman, John Leg* 
gett, Richard Field, John C. Merritt, and Samuel 
J. Underbill. 

When the case came on at the next Yearly Meet- 
ing in 5th month, 1842, the following friends were 
appointed a Committee to hear the respective parties, 
viz. Solomon Underbill, Samuel Bowne, Samuel 
Halsted, David R. Carpenter, of Purchase Quarterly 
3 



26 

Meeting; Jacob Willets, Daniel E. Jereau, Alex- 
ander J. Coffin, Josiah H. Quimby, of Nine Partners 
Quarterly Meeting ; George G. Macy, Henry M. 
Robinson, Thomas C. Stringham, Henry J. Powell) 
of Stanford Quarterly Meeting ; Jacob Merrilt, Job 
Wilbur, Stephen Dillingham, Aaron Rogers, of 
Easton Quarterly Meeting ; Thomas Rogers, Arden 
Barker, Joseph Rogers, Samuel Keese, of Fer- 
risburgh Quarterly Meeting ; Abraham Leggett, 
Joseph Gurney, Abraham Merritt, Job Wright, of 
Saratoga Quarterly Meeting ; John Powell, Abner 
Moore, Abraham Van Vleck, Jacob Gurney, of 
Duanesburgh Quarterly Meeting ; James Crom- 
well, John Townsend Hallock, H.ezekiah Fergu- 
son, George Fritz, of Cornwell Quarterly Meet- 
ing ; Morris Webster, Richard Brolherton, John 
Corlies, James C. Moore, of Shrewsbury and Rah- 
way Quarterly Meeting. 

When the case came before the meeting, I asked 
permission for James S. Gibbons to be present with 
me, as his case would be called up soon after mine. 
It was proper that he should be there to answer to 
it, and state whether he intended to prosecute his 
appeal or not | and I had motives for wishing his 
presence. The request was simply made without 
any reasons being given on my part. Immediately 
a member of Westhury Quarterly Meeting objected 
to and opposed the request. Upon this, I remarked, 
that any interference from the members of the quarter 
from whence the appeal came, was out of order, and 



27 

I hoped the business would be left where it properly 
belonged, and that the case would be conducted with 
a dignity becoming the occasion. The request was 
then granted. 

The Committee, the Respondents, and myself 
had several meetings — I think six in all, of about 
two hours each. One of the Respondents, John C. 
Merritt, attended the first, and perhaps the second 
sitting, when he returned home, as he disapproved 
of the whole proceedings on the part of the prosecu- 
tion. At the first sitting of the Committee, I was 
called upon to make my objections to the proceedings 
of the subordinate Meetings. I did so, by reading a 
document which I had prepared for the purpose. 
I made a few additional remarks, when the Respond- 
ents entered upon their reply. They then read parts 
of several essays from the Standard. I requested 
that they should read the whole of each essay which 
they deemed proper to refer to, as the tenor of it 
could not be appreciated or understood by reading 
parts only, and one part would qualify another. 
This they refused, and the Yearly Meeting Com- 
mittee sustained them in this course. I think about 
nine hours were occupied by the Respondents, and 
perhaps about two by myself. I soon discovered 
that the minds of many of the Committee were 
fixed, so that nothing that could be said would 
change them. It appeared to me that several of 
them were particularly so, which they clearly mani- 
fested by a degree of activity unbecoming those 



S8 

who were intended to be impartial judges. The 
Respondents consumed much time in reading from 
the Anli-Slavery Standard, and the document which 
had been prepared and clandestinely circulated by 
the overseers of the Monthly Meeting of New-York, 
and in making such statements as they thought 
would influence the Committee. In doing so, there 
was much bitterness of spirit manifested by some 
of the Respondents, and the truth was not strictly 
adhered to in stating facts. 

I then endeavoured to show that the proceedings 
of the Monthly Meeting were not warranted by the 
discipline, nor supported by the facts of the case. 
It was easy to perceive that many of the Committee 
were deeply imbued with prejudice, and I did not 
believe that much would be gained by my going 
very fully or at large into the merits of the case. I 
therefore satisfied myself with a simple statement 
of it, and the views I entertained of the discipline 
upon which the proceedings were founded, with lit- 
tle or no comment, further than appeared necessary 
to illustrate the positions which I assumed. Indeed 
the state of my health at the time admitted of nothing 
more ; and I felt little disposition to contend with 
the spirit and disposition exhibited by my opponents 
on the occasion. 

After the hearing of the Respondents and myself 
was over, the Committee, I was informed, occupied 
about four hours in discussing the case as presented 
to them by the parties. A report was then made 



29 , - 

to the Yearly Meeting, of which I am told the fol 
lowing is a copy. 

" The Committee on Isaac T. Hopper's appeal 
report, that after patient deliberation thereon, we 
find that eighteen of our number are in favour of 
confirming the judgment of the Quarterly Meeting, 
fifteen for reversing it, and three declined giving 
judgment in the case." 

Upon this report there was considerable discus- 
sion ; after which, the Meeting decided that the 
decision of the subordinate Meetings should be 
confirmed. 

The Committee, I was informed, stood thus : — 
For confirming the decision, Joseph Rogers, John 
Powell, Abraham Leggett, Joseph Gurney, James 
Cromwell, Morris Webster, James C. Moore, Solo- 
mon Underbill, Samuel Halsted, David R. Car- 
penter, Jacob Willets, Daniel E. Jereau, Alexander 
J. Coffin, Josiah H. Quimby, Jacob Merritt, Stephen 
Dillingham, Aaron Rogers, and Thomas C. String- 
ham. 

For reversal, Thomas Rogers, Arden Barker, 
Samuel Keese, Abner Moore, Abraham Van Vleck, 
Abraham Merritt, Job Wright, John Townsend 
Hallock, Hezekiah Ferguson, Richard Brother- 
ton, Samuel Bowne, Job Wilbur, George G. Macy, 
Henry M. Robmson, and Henry J. Powell. 

Those who declined giving judgment in the 
case, were Jacob Gurney, George Fritz, and John 
Corlies. 

3* 



30 

The Explanation, of which I have spoken as 
having emanated from the overseers, I think stands 
unparalleled in point of unfairness and deception. It 
was incorrect in its statements, and invidious in its 
whole bearing. Whatever there was in ii that had 
the least origin in truth, was enveloped in a colour- 
ing as false as the design was malevolent and vi- 
cious. Probably most of my readers are familiar 
with the case of the slave, Tom Hughes, or, as it 
has sometimes been called, the " Darg case." My 
accusers endeavoured to make it appear in this 
document that the connection of James S. Gibbons 
and myself with that case, was of a grossly reproach- 
ful and immoral character. I shall withhold further 
comment until I place the reader in possession of a 
condensed statement of the facts of that case which 
has been greatly perverted and misrepresented. 

Thomas Hughes was a slave of John P. Darg, 
whose residence was said to be at Helena, in Ar- 
kansas. Said Darg was the adopted son of John 
Darg of this city. Tom had been sold several times 
before he came into the possession of Darg. Bis- 
coming weary of his bondage, he determined to be 
free. During the year 1838, his master contem- 
plated a visit to his reputed father in New-York, and 
was desirous that his slave should accompany him. 
He inquired of him if he would not like to be free ? 
He made this inquiry that he might form an opinion 
whether it would be safe to bring Tom with him. 
Tom was, in some respects, a shrewd fellow, and 



31 

immediately understood his master's object in ask- 
ing the question. He answered — No ; and said he 
did not wish to be free. He would rather be a slave 
and live with him. 

Darg now concluded it would be safe to bring 
him to New-York. Darg, his wife, and Tom, ac- 
cordingly arrived in this city the latter part of the 
8th month, 1838. Immediately upon their arrival, 
Tom began to consider how he could get his free- 
dom. In the course of two or three days he met 
with Henry Clark, a colored man, who wa s a waiter 
at a public garden in Broadway, a few doors below 
my office. Tom made his case known to Henry, 
and asked him if there was any way to get free. 
Henry inquired of him if he had any money ? He 
replied that he had none of his own, but that he had 
the care of his master's. Clark proposed to him to 
take his master's money and give it to him, and he 
would return it on condition that he should be ma- 
numitted. The plan appearing feasible, the same 
evening Tom abstracted his master's money and 
gave it to Henry Clark. Clark changed Tom's 
clothes, and about 12 o'clock brought him to my 
house. The bell was rung, when James S. Gib- 
bons, who was then a member of my family, opened 
the window, and inquired what was wanted ? The 
answer was, ' Young Mr. Hopper.' My sons then 
had their place of business nearly opposite to where 
Clark was a waiter, and by that means he came to 
a knowledge of them. My son John was called, 



32 

who opened the front door, when Clark and Hughes 
entered. 

I heard the conversation, got up, and was told a 
colored man wanted accommodations for the night. 
Such a request was not unusual. Tom was ac- 
cordingly furnished with lodging. I rose early the 
next morning, and upon inquiry, was informed that 
the stranger was a fugitive slave. I was aware 
that my house would not be a safe asylum for him, 
and left directions with my family that he should 
leave as soon as he got his breakfast. He accord- 
ingly did so, and went to Abraham Shoemaker's, 
who lived near me. The next day I saw an adver- 
tisement in a paper called " The Sun," offering a 
reward of one thousand dollars for the apprehension 
and return of a mulatto man, who, it was said, had 
stolen seven or eight thousand dollars from a house 
in Varick-street, or a proportionate amount for any 
part of the money. 

In consequence of this advertisement, I made in- 
quiry where Tom could be found, and called to see 
him. I told him of the advertisement, and inquired 
whether it was true. He replied, it was not, and 
said, it was very common for slave-holders to adver- 
tise their runaway slaves as thieves. I believed 
him, concluding it was a stratagem adopted by 
Darg to recapture him. 

About this time, Barney Corse called upon me, 
and when I asked him what he thought of the ad- 
vertisement in " The Sun," respecting a robbery in 



33 

Varick-street, he replied, that he had not thought 
any thing about it, and asked if there was any thing 
pecuhar in it. I then observed that I did not be- 
heve a robbery had been comnaitted ; upon which 
he called in company with Horace Dresser, a re- 
spectable lawyer, and D. Ruggles, upon the editor 
of that paper, who told Corse he was satisfied that 
the robbery had been committed, and added, " The 
man who has lost his money will manumit the slave 
in addition to the reward, if he can recover it ; and 
if you will call upon him he will tell you so." Bar- 
ney then called upon Darg, who fully confirmed 
what the editor had said. Corse stated to Darg his 
conscientious scruples respecting slavery, and said, 
that he could have no agency in returning a fugi- 
tive slave to his master, but was willing to render 
what aid he could in recovering the lost money. 

The information that Corse received from Darg 
and others, and which he communicated to me, led 
me to the conclusion, that the money had really been 
taken ; and I felt desirous that it should be restored 
to its rightful owner. Just after this interview with 
Barney Corse, I was informed that Tom had said 
he had given to some person one hundred and fifty 
dollars, and had received but twelve dollars in ex- 
change for it. I immediately took measures to find 
who that person was, and ascertained it to be Henry 
Clark, before mentioned. James S. Gibbons, stop- 
ped incidentally at my office, and at my request 
saw Henry Clark, and asked him to call on me, 



34 

which he did. Clark was told that if his previous 
character was good, and he wou d tell where the 
money was, and use his exertions to assist in getting 
it, he should not be exposed. He then admitted 
that Tom had placed in his hands a sum of money, 
but how much, he could not exactly say. 

J. S. Gibbons accompanied him to his place of 
residence, and obtained from him a roll of bank- 
notes, which, with another sum subsequently ob- 
tained at the garden, where it had been concealed, 
amounted to five thousand eight hundred dollars. 
He then told us, that a man, by the name of Bob 
Jackson, had received one thousand twenty-five 
dollars. I requested J. S. Gibbons to accompany 
Henry in search of Jackson, and they soon returned 
bringing him with them. Upon giving him the like 
assurance we had given Henry, that he should not 
be exposed, he acknowledged having received the 
one thousand twenty-five dollars, as mentioned by 
Clark, but said, he had placed it in the hands of a 
friend of his, who resided in Albany, to keep for 
him, and that his friend had taken it home. 

I prevailed upon B. Corse to accompany Jackson 
to Albany to get this money, in which he was suc- 
cessful, and paid it to Darg the same evening that 
he returned. 

The particulars of this part of the business were, 
in a former publication, related by James S. Gib- 
bons, as follows : — " I suggested to L T. Hopper, 
thai it would hardly be safe to trust him alone, and 



35 

that some one ought to accompany him to prevent 
further villany. Barney Corse was engaged by 
Isaac T. Hopper for that purpose. He wished to 
see Darg first, and have an exphcit understanding 
of the conditions on which he would go. At his 
request, I accompanied him to Darg's lodgings, and 
an agreement was then made, providing for the 
manumission of the coloured man, the payment of 
his (Corse's) expenses, and the exoneration from 
criminal prosecution, of any person or persons con- 
cerned in the robbery, if it shovld he necessary to 
secure the money. This agreement was subse- 
quently reduced to writing and signed by Darg^ 
On the next morning, Corse went to Albany with 
Bob Jackson. 

" On the same evening on which the five thousand 
eight hundred dollars was recovered, I..T. Hopper 
gave it into my possession for safe-keeping, and 1 
stated to him my intention to place it in the bank, 
and to inform some well-known individual thereof, 
in order to protect my own character from any 
charge of improper motives in retaining it. Ac-' 
cordingly, the next morning, I informed Reuben 
Withers, the cashier of the Bank of the State of 
New-York, that the said money had been entrusted 
to me for safe-keeping, and that it would be returned 
to the proper owner, so soon as the measures then 
in progress for the recovery of the balance should 
terminate ; an unseasonable disclosure, it was fear* 
ed, might defeat those measures^ 



3B 

" On the 2d of the 9th month, Barney Corse return- 
ed from Albany, having succeeded in obtaining from 
Bob Jackson one thousand and twenty-five dollars. 
He communicated to the Recorder of the city, who 
was a fellow-passenger on the boat, the nature of 
his business ; exhibited to him the money, and the 
agreement with Darg, and received from him coun- 
sel and advice relative to the best mode of carrying 
out his purpose. In regard to this interview, the Re- 
corder stated in evidence, when the case was under 
legal investigation, that Corse's manner was frank, 
and that he manifested no disposition improperly to 
shield a criminal from justice. He admonished 
Barney that the paper which he had was not a 
manumission, but only an agreeynent to manumit^ 
and that he should take care to have a manumission 
properly drawn and executed. In the cross-exami- 
nation, he was asked, if he had advised Barney to 
get the manumission executed 7 to which he answer 
ed, yes. The counsel for the prosecution then asked 
him, if, before giving him that advice, he had read 
the clause of the agreement which promised an ex- 
oneration from criminal prosecution ? to which he 
answered, * yes, I distinctly remember reading that 
clause.' 

" On the same evening that he returned from Al- 
bany, Corse requested me to accompany him to 
witness the return of the one thousand twenty-five 
dollars. Darg declined receiving it, though Corse 
offered it to him several times. This was in con- 



foi'mity with the advice of police officer Peck, whose 
■object was to Catch Corse loith the money on his 
person, and then make it appear that he had feloni- 
ous possession of it. Darg's father received it. ' 

" After our return from Darg^s, L T. Hopper 
requested me to hand over to Corse the five thousand 
eight hundred dollars which had been entrusted to 
my keeping. On comparing the notes with memo- 
randa given by Darg, there appeared to be a defi- 
ciency of ten or fourteen hundred dollars ; in con- 
sequence of which, it was determined to confront 
the parties implicated in the transation, to discover, 
if possible, how this had been disposed of. On the 
evening of the 3d, Tom Hughes, Henry Clark, and 
Bob Jackson, were brought together at Isaac T. 
Hopper's house, and Tom declared that he had 
given a part of the money to another person, not 
jpresent, and who was in company with Clark at 
the time. Clark was finally induced to expose the 
name of this individual, and agreed to meet any of 
our number after 10 o^clock that night, to go in 
quest of him. The object of the interview being 
attained, the parties separated. T agreed to meet 
Corse in the neighborhood of Darg's, at 9 o'clock, 
to witness the return of the recovered money. We 
met at the appointed hour, and Corse began count- 
ing the money, in presence of Darg and several 
other members of the family. While in the act, 
and before he had delivered it into Darg's hands, 
Merritt and Peck, well known to the citizens of 
4 



^etv-Yoik as having been connected with llie polide 
department, rushed into the room, snatched up the 
money and papers, and arrested Barney Corse for 
compounding a felony. They were followed im- 
ftiediately by two or more other men, one of whom, 
as it afterwards appeared, was Ambrose L. Jorda?i, 
a lawyer, and counsel for John P. Darg. Corse 
expressed his astonishment at such an outrageous 
attack, and said he was willing to go before any 
fnagistrate that might be named. Merritt replied, 
he had made arrangements with Lov/ndcs, who was 
then at Niblo's garden, but would be at home soon. 
Either he or Peck asked how much money had 
been recovered in all ? Corse replied, ' Nearly seven 
thousand dollars.' Merritt, Corse, and myself, pro- 
ceeded in company to Lowndes' dwelling, in Li- 
berty-street. L-nmcdiatcly on leo.ving Darg's house, 
Corse told Merritt, that he had the remainder of 
the money that had been recovered, in his pocket, 
and that he intended to give it to Darg ; but under 
the altered circumstances of the case, he would give 
it to Justice Lowndes. Merritt stated on oath, that 
Corse said nothing about having any more money 
in his possession, until he threatened to search him, 
and that he then surrendered it. I feel bound in 
justice to Barney Corse, to pronounce this untrue ; 
and I speak positively, because I did not leave him 
for an instant, up to the time when he gave the 
money to Darg in Lowndes' house. Not a word 
about search was uttered, until after Corse informed 



Merrilt, more than once, that he had the money m 
his possession, and would give it to Justice Lowndes, 
as soon as he would see him. Merritt wished to 
become possessed of the money, that he might him- 
self return it to Darg, and thus be entitled to the 
reward ; and Corse suspecting his object, was not 
inclined to favour it. 

" These are the material facts of the case of which 
I v/as cognizant ; they form but a small part of its 
entire history. The outrageous assault of the police, 
the clamour of a profligate press, and the anxiety of 
the District Attorney to propitiate the popular sen- 
timent, by convicting an Abolitionist, have given to 
it a degree of notoriety to which its bare importance 
does not entitle it. Nevertheless, this may have its 
uses. I am much mistaken if the exposition now 
offered will not prove the necessity of a rigid scru- 
tiny into the conduct of our police officers. Cor- 
ruption pervades every department of our police 
system ; its first victims may be among the humblest 
of our citizens, and those who are most odious in 
the public eye ; but if aggression on these be suf- 
fered to go unpunished, the community generally 
must soon become exposed to inroads of reckless 
marauders, whose official character may serve only 
to shield them from the just sentence of the law, 

" The parties who undertook to ferret out the 
stolen money for the sole purpose of returning it to 
its owner, have been charged with imprudence. It 
is difficult to conceive how they could have acted 



40 

with more prudence. The whole amount of money 
recovered, was six thousand nine hundred and eight 
dollars ; five thousand eight hundred dollars of this 
was entrusted to my keeping, and I immediately 
informed Reuben Withers of the fact, for the ex- 
press purpose of protecting my own character from 
a possible imputation of dishonest motives, B. 
Corse procured one thousand twenty-five dollars at 
Albany, of which he informed the Recorder of the 
city. Was not this prudent 1 

" What man in the community would not feel 
safe in his integrity after confiding his purpose to 
the guardian of one of the first financial institutions 
of the city, or to its first judicial oflficer ? But be- 
cause that confidence was not reposed in some petty 
police ofi[icer in preference to those gentlemen, Mer- 
ritt and Peck, aided by a speculator in slaves, and 
Ambrose L. Jordan, a lawyer, determined on an 
ambuscade which should involve the parties in the 
liability of a criminal conviction ! And Jordan, 
fearful that his adjuncts in the scheme might fail in 
some essential point, proceeded to the house of 
Darg, and superintended its execution in person." 

As soon as it was ascertained that Tom had 
stolen his master's money, and measures had been 
taken to secure its recovery, he was left to pursue 
his own way. Those who were willing to afford 
him protection as a suspected fugitive slave, could 
not conscientiously harbor him after they discover- 
ed he was a felon ; and he seeing himself thus 



abandoned among strangers, by those whom he con* 
sidered as his friends, after a few days, voluntarily 
returned to his master. 

It appears from Darg's account, that Tom had 
been a trusty and faithful servant, had fully gained 
his confidence, carried the keys of his trunk, and 
was frequently sent to it to get money when it was 
wanted. 

I would not, under any circumstances, counte- 
nance the act of Tom in abstracting Darg's money ; 
but my sense of his guilt is not a little modified by 
the reflection, that all the tendencies of Slavery are 
calculated to blunt the moral sensibilities, and to 
destroy that power of discrimination between right 
and wrong, for which even educated slave-holders 
themselves are so little remarkable. And, when I 
consider also, the evil influence of Darg's example 
upon Tom, (according to whose statements he is 
one of the most reckless of gamblers,) I am still 
less surprised at his perpetration of the act ; his 
conduct truly verifies the adage, " Evil communi- 
cations corrupt good manners." 
,. After suffering some time in confinement, Merritt 
and Peck, uncle and nephew, and both police offi- 
cers, told him, as appears by a statement made by 
Tom, that if he would swear he was advised by 
us, Ruggles, Corse, Gibbons and myself to rob his 
master, &c., he should not be prosecuted, but used 
as a witness. This was a trial upon his honesty 
too great to be resisted, and I have been informed, 
4* 



4a 

he agreed to do so ; and the District Attorney iii^ 
formed me, that application was made to him to 
enter a nolle prosequi in his case ; but he dechned 
doing so- 

What higher bribe could be offered to any man, 
than a manumission from slavery, (for a slave can- 
not be a witness in such a case,) and an exemption 
from prosecution for felony ? It cannot be supposed 
that an individual^ who had all his life been a slave, 
and, if his own account be true, and there is no 
reason to doubt it, had lived a long time with gam-^ 
biers, would have hesitated, under such induce- 
mentSj to say any thing that might be required of 
him. During the first six weeks after Tom return- 
ed to Darg, he was taken out of prison at the plea- 
sure of the police officers. Peck furnished him 
with food, and had him at his house, which afforded 
him an opportunity to tamper with, and prepare 
him for any measures he might wish to pursue 5 
and there is no doubt but he made good use of the 
opportunity thus put into his power- As Tom could 
not be released to testify as a witness, they then 
endeavored to get him discharged from prisoUj 
and take him to the South ; but in this they were 
again disappointed, for he refused to go, saying, he 
would take his own life first. This so enraged 
Peck, that he attempted to strike him in his cell, 
but was prevented by the keeper of the prison. 

Tom Hughes returned to Darg on the 6th of the 
9th month, 1838, and B. Corse had entered recog- 



iiizance to appear at the Court of Sessions three 
days before. The grand jury were then in session, 
and remained so nearly two weeks, but it does not 
appear that the complaint was laid before them ; 
neither was it submitted to the grand jury of the 
next session, until the day they usually get through 
their business and are dismissed. The reader will 
be at a loss to understand why the business should 
have been so long protracted ; more especially aa 
Darg was a great distance from home, and was very 
anxious to return. But the secret will be unravelled 
when he is informed that overtures had been made 
to E. Corse, to pay the balance of the lost money, 
, and the prosecution against him and others should 
be abandoned ; and his connexions being wealthy, 
they no doubt flattered themselves with the hope 
that this would be done. There was also another 
reason why the business should be delayed. I had 
found it necessary, in order to prevent Darg from 
suddenly leaving the city, to commence an action 
for the amount of the reward, and I was threatened 
with prosecution, though not then indicted j but it 
was frequently intimated to me, that if my suit was 
withdrawn, no further proceeding would be had in 
the case : and some time was required to effect this 
object. At length, after the grand jury had been 
in session about twelve days, and Darg and his 
party found their overtures were rejected, the com- 
plaint was laid before them, and on the 16th of 
iOth month, 1838, a bill of indictment was found 



44 

against Thomas Hughes for grand larceny, and 
against Barney Corse, James S. Gibbons, Henry 
Clark, David Ruggles and Isaac T. Hopper, for 
that we " did feloniously receive, harbour, aid and 
maintain, with intent and in order that the said 
Thomas Hughes might avoid and escape from 
arrest, trial, conviction and punishment." 

On Tom's trial, it finally appeared, that he had 
no other object in taking his master's money, than 
to secure his own freedom ; and, under this view, 
the court passed the mildest sentence upon him 
that the law would allow, viz. two years imprison- 
ment at hard labor.* 



* Some weeks before Tom Hughes' sentence expired, Darg 
took his wife to see him at Sing Sing, and told him that if, when 
his time was out, he would go with him to the South, he would 
manumit her ; and that he should not attempt to make a slave 
of him. The day before Tom's sentence expired, I went to Sing 
Sing, and informed him that I had come to make him acquainted 
with the position in which he stood — that he was a free man, arid 
might stay at the North, or go to the South as he pleased. 

Darg and his friend Peck went to Sing Sing in the stage with 
me. Soon after my interview with Tom, Darg saw him ; he 
also had a conversation with him the next morning immediately 
before ho was set at liberty. As soon as he was discharged, I 
again informed Tom that he was a free man, and that I had come 
there to protect liim. In consequence of the plausible overtures 
made by Darg, Tom concluded to go with him. He accordingly 
accompanied him as far as Baltimore, when he discovered that 
Darg had sold his wife, and intended to make a slave of him. 
Upon making this discovery, he embraced the first opportunity 
that offered and left him, and now resides at the North. 



The police officers were stimulated in their exer- 
tions by the hope of receiving the reward ; and to 
accomplish their object, resorted to every stratagem 
their ingenuity could invent, without regard to truth 
or justice. I was informed that but six grand 
jurors, out of eighty that were directed to be sum- 
moned, appeared at court ; and it is believed that 
very few, if any, of the absentees were notified. 
The officers were ordered to summon others ; and 
it may be supposed that they would select such 
persons as would answer their own purpose. Many 
of them were men of low character : such as rum- 
sellers, tavern-keepers, &c. One thing is certain, 
they found a bill of indictment against several re- 
spectable persons without a particle of evidence. 

James S. Gibbons never attended the court at 
all ; and neither he nor myself was ever called upon 
to answer to the indictments, though I often soli- 
cited the court in person to bring our cases to trial ; 
and finally they were dismissed as being wholly 
groundless. Neither of us employed an attorney 
in the case. 

It will be proper to state the motives that influ- 
enced me in bringing a suit for the reward. The 
pro-slavery papers had greatly misrepresented the 
case, and I thought it possible an indictment might 
be trumped up against us ; and I was perfectly 
satisfied from the first, that Darg would never have 
the temerity to face either James S. Gibbons or 
myself before a judicial tribunal ; and I was appre- 



46 

hensive he would leave the city, and the cases never 
receive a full and open investigation which I wished 
to invite. I was determined to detain him until 
that object was accomplished. After an investiga- 
tion had had taken place, and the indictment against 
James S. Gibbons and myself had been dismissed 
as wholly groundless, I discontinued the suit against 
Darg upon his paying costs. I ought to mention, 
that soon after the suit was commenced, I announ- 
ced in the public papers my intention not to apply 
any part of the amount I might receive to my own 
use, though I hardly thought the case would pro- 
ceed so far as to be tried. 

Last summer, when I viras at Farmington, a 
person in the station of a minister, a member of 
Genesse Yearly Meeting, and who had been to 
Philadelphia professedly on a religious visit, and 
spent a short time in this city on his way home, 
stated in a large company that some individuals in 
the city of New-York had paid eight hundred dol- 
lars for me in this case, to save the reputation of the 
Society. A friend who was present gave me this 
information, and I immediately, in company with 
two or three others, called upon the individual above 
alluded to. He admitted that he had made the 
statement, but declined naming the person, though 
urged to do so, from whom he had received the in- 
formation ; but said it was a friend of high stand- 
ing in the city of New-York ; that he would write 
to him, and that the friend would call upon me. 



It 

No such friend has called. The statement was Uttei" 
ly false. Neither James S. Gibbons nor myself, 
nor any other person for us, ever paid one cent in 
the whole concern. This person made several 
other statements equally malicious and untrue. 

I have now placed the reader in possession of a 
faithful though condensed history of the facts con^ 
nected with the " Darg case," which has given rise 
to so much falsehood ; and for my connection with 
which, I have received an almost unmeasured amount 
of persecution from a number of individuals, who 
have been so far carried away by their worldly, selfish 
interests and pro-slavery prejudices, as to vilify and 
injure me, for that which, in their own hearts and 
consciences, they can not condemn. I have many 
times reviewed every thing done by me in connec- 
tion with the case, and in the retrospect, can most 
truly say, that there was nothing in my course that 
I would desire to change or undo. When I was 
with the Respondents and the Committee appoint- 
ed by the Yearly Meeting, I was refused a copy 
of the slanderous Explanation, nor was I per- 
mitted to take notes from it, that I might prepare 
a refutation of its falsehoods. One reason alleged 
for denying my request was, that if I should get it 
into my possession, " lue shall see it in print in less 
thanamonth.^'' During the sittings of the Committee, 
I called on the late Recorder of the city, (who has 
since been made Mayor) — he presided at the trial of 
Barney Corse, during which every thing connected 



■•#» 



with the matter was fully developed — and informed 
liim that an attempt had heen made to cast reflec- 
tions upon my characterj in consequence of the part 
I had taken in the *' Darg case," and requested from 
him a certificate as to the position 1 occupied with 
reference to it. He seemed indignant, and was 
anxious to do any thing to serve me in the matter, 
knd offered to go anywhere and give testimony in 
J)erson as to my integrity. 1 thanked him, and in- 
formed him that his simple certificate would satisfy 
me. He was to me almost a stranger, as I had 
never had any acquaintance with him, except what 
arose from meeting him in court, as the Presid- 
ing Judge during thd pendency of this case ; and 
I could not but mark the strong contrast between the 
kind, frank, and generous course exhibited by him, 
knd that pursued by those upon whose kindness and 
protection I had far greater claims. I was at once 
furnished with the following certificate, written by 
the Mayor himself, and which, it will be seen, was 
fully concurred in by the prosecuting Attorney* 

Mayor's OJice, May 26tk, 1842. 

I hereby certify, that I was Recorder of the city 
of New^York during the trial of the case in relation 
to Thomas Hughes, the slave of John P. Darg ; 
and also, that in the said trial and investigation, I 
saw nothing in the least militating against the cha- 
racter of Mr. Isaac T. Hopper, or that could be 
considered reproachful. All that he exhibited was 



4« 

a desire to procure the money for the master, and 
the m.anumission of tlie slave. 

Robert H, Morris, 
" " Mayor of the city of New- York. 

I fully concur in the above. 

J. R. Whiting, 
District Attorney, New- York. 

May 26. 1843. 

During the whole pendency of the case which I 
have just narrated, I had never one moment's anxiety 
as to the result. I knew very well that I had done 
nothing wrong according to my own judgment, and 
I availed myself of every means v>^ithin my reach 
lo have the whole circumstances thoroughly inves- 
tigated. I also knew that I had been actuated by 
no other motive than to serve the cause of hu- 
manity. I employed no counsel at any stage of the 
proceeding. I felt in need of no legal assistance. 
I had the offer of whatever professional aid might 
be necessary in maintaining my defence, but I was 
convinced that nothing would be required beyond 
what I could myself accomplish, I had strong 
reasons for believing that the indictments could 
have been quashed, owing to technical informality J 
but I was unwilling, so far as I was concerned, to 
do any thing that would prevent an investigation of 
the case upon its rg^rits, I was well aware that 
in all that I had done, I had the full approbation of 
many highly intelligent and excellent individuals ; 
5 



50 

and that my course was sanctioned and approved 
by some eminent jurists, who had taken the trouble 
to make themselves acquainted with the case. The 
trial of J. S. Gibbons and myself was delayed by the 
prosecution for many months, during which time I at- 
tended court, mostly once a month, for the purpose 
of demanding a hearing of the case. The court, 
at last, seeing that there was nothing to sustain the 
charge, were unwilling to grant further delay to a 
flimsy prosecution; and ordered a nolle prosequi to 
be entered, and the matter was dismissed. 

The whole facts of this case, as I have detailed 
them, had been published to the world, and my 
persecutors were doubtless perfectly famihar with 
them ; yet they were willing and anxious to torture 
and pervert what I considered one of the best acts 
of my life into an engine, that would, could they 
carry out their purpose, crush me to pieces, and 
blast my moral and religious character for ever. 

The reader will be astonished when I mention, 
that one of the Respondents of the Quarterly Meet- 
ing entered into a recognizance for my appearance 
at the time the trial should come on. He did so 
apparently with great cheerfulness. He was an 
overseer too, and yet he never expressed to me a 
single word of disapprobation or dissatisfaction of 
the course I had taken. The individual who enter- 
ed into a recognizance for the appearance of James 
S. Gibbons, was one of the Respondents of the 
Monthly Meetmg, and had never made any objec- 



51 

lion, or even expressed to the parties concerned 
any unwillingness to continue his responsibility. 

The overseers knew perfectly well that I courted 
the closest investigation of the case from Darg and 
the whole company of prosecutors. They also 
knew that the action against Darg Vv^as commenced 
with the view of obtaining an examination of the 
whole case. I announced this in the public papers 
at the time, and stated, that if the reward was re- 
covered, not one cent should be appropriated to my 
own use, but that it should be made over to some 
benevolent society. Several of the overseers fur- 
ther knew that overtures had been repeatedly made 
to me to discontinue the action for the reward, and 
the prosecution should be immediately abandoned 
and dismissed. In the face of all these facts, this 
" Explanation " contained the following paragraph 
from the Book of Discipline, as being applicable to 
to the connection of James S. Gibbons and myself 
with the case. 

" If any member of our Society should be guilty 
of gross or notorious crimes, or such other disor- 
derly and indecent practices as occasion public 
scandal, he should be speedily labored with by the 
Monthly Meeting ; and if he cannot be brought to 
a proper sense of his misconduct, he should be dis- 
owned." 

My opponents discovered, that in alleging such 
grossly immoral conduct on my part, they would 
show their own inconsistency and neglect in not 



52 

having long ago taken the case to the Meeting, 
desired to relieve themselves from the dilemma. 
To do this, they had the effrontery to say, that 
they then would have taken my case forward ; 
but as I was indicted as an accessory to a larceny 
after the fact, they forebore out of tenderness to 
me and my family, lest it should prejudice the 
public mind, and be injurious to me on my trial. 
This assertion was false, and grossly inconsistent 
on the face of it. The " Darg case " was pending 
for several months, and then dismissed without be- 
ing bi-ought to trial. It certainly would not have 
been out of season for the overseers to have taken 
up my case then ; but so far from that, not a single 
member of our meeting ever signified to me that 
he thought I had acted improperly, or in any way 
deserved censure in relation to that affair. It would 
be diflicult for malignity to create a more mis- 
chievous, false and scandalous story than was pro- 
pagated by the overseers and their coadjutors, for 
the purpose of destroying my reputation and carry- 
ing out their own sinister purposes. In the whole 
management of my case from beginning to end, 
there was a finesse and low cunning exhibited by my 
opponents I could not descend to meet. 

The " Explanation" contained other false and 
scandalous imputations, equally untrue, with the 
attempt to distort and misrepresent my connection 
with the " Darg case." But T fear that I liave al- 
ready erred in going loo much into the detail of 



3d 

what can afford but little interest to my readers. 1 
%ink there can be required no stronger proof that 
my persecutors were conscious of the turpitude of 
this covert attempt to injure me by the production of 
this document, than their unwilUngness and positive 
refusal to give me a copy of it. They were ashamed 
to expose their own conduct to the light of day. 

With reference to this "■ Explanation," I may 
further state, that there was no attempt on the part 
of the Respondents of New-York Monthly Meeting 
to read it to the Committee appointed by the Quar- 
terly Meeting to hear my case in my presence ; in- 
deed it appears that they did not intend we, J. S. 
Gibbons and myself, should ever know there was 
such a document in existence ; for when the Quar- 
terly Meeting Committee was informed that it had 
come to our knowledge, one of them observed, 
" we have leaky vessels among us." The Com- 
mittee of the Quarterly Meeting in James S. Gib- 
bon's case, however, was called together at Cow 
Neck to hear it read, when Samuel Leggett, 
Henry Mott, and John C. Merritt, with an exem- 
plary magnanimity and fairness, objected to its be- 
ing read, unless the accused was present. It was 
then proposed to meet in New- York, at six o'clock 
on the evening of the day previous to the next 
Quarterly Meeting, that he might have an oppor- 
tunity of hearing it. But it was said that the docu- 
ment was long, and they finally agreed to meet two 
hours earlier, as it would afford more time to hear 
5* 



54 

it. The Committee, the Respondents, and James 
S. Gibbons, met at the time adjourned to ; hut the 
"Explanation" was not produced. Here is the 
fact ; comment on such a proceeding is unnecessary- 
So far, however, as regarded the purposes of the 
traducersj it was entirely unnecessary that the docu- 
ment should have been produced, as the design of 
the authors had been already accomplished by its 
clandestine circulation. It was secretly circulated 
in different parts of the country embraced by the 
limits of the Quarterly Meeting, and read in the 
presence of a company, all of which were not mem- 
bers of the Society of Friends, It must be recol- 
lected too, that the actors in this design were indivi- 
duals occupying the station of overseers, professing 
to carry out the letter and the spirit of the discipline, 
and to act under the influence of religious concern. 
I am sure that such gross injustice is without paral- 
lel in the annals of the Society of Friends. And I 
do not believe there is in existence a religious So- 
ciety that would knowingly countenance a proceed- 
ing so entirely divested of Christian kindness, and 
so marked at every step by falsehood and finesse^ 
Since the introduction of my case into the Monthly 
Meeting, infinite pains and labor have been taken by 
my adversaries to give a false coloring to the whole 
matter, by which the minds of numbers have been 
prejudiced and poisoned. The facts which I have 
so far communicated, can furnish the reader with 
but a faint idea of the many unchristian devices 



used by my enemies and pursuers to achieve their 
scandalous design. Their conduct is without one 
single palliating feature. In vain can they seek 
for a plea sufficient in the judgment of impartial 
and disinterested minds, to justify them in their 
course, or acquit them of gross and wanton injus- 
tice, — of slander in its most aggravated form. 

When the Yearly Meeting Committee, the Re- 
spondents and myself were together, in alluding to 
the conduct of the abettors in my disownment, I 
endeavored to inculcate the view that the Discipline 
was originally designed for the mutual benefit of all 
the members of the Society ; and when administered 
by exemplary, righteous men, in accordance with 
the spirit indicated in the following extracts from 
its pages, will continue to be, as it ever has been, 
eminently useful in promoting the happiness and 
welfare of individuals, itnd the prosperity of the 
Society at large. But when its administration falls 
into the hands of designing, crafty, worldly-minded 
men, who would use it as an instrument to carry 
out purposes stimulated by animosity and revenge 
— then indeed has the time arrived when it had bet- 
ter be committed to the flames, than thus to furnish 
an engine of oppression and injustice. 

I then quoted from the Book of Discipline as 
follows : The reader will observe, that I have italic- 
ised such parts as have been violated or neglected 
by those concerned in my disownment. 

" It is desired that overseers may treat with them 



56 

[offenders] in the spirit of meekness and restoring 
love, patiently endeavoring to instruct and advise 
them ; but should their labor prove ineffectual, the 
preparative meeting should in due season be in- 
formed of the cases." The overseers " ought to 
exercise a tender and vigilant care over their fellow 
members." " Although those who transgress should 
manifest a spirit of opposition, yet we ought patient- 
ly and meekly to instruct and advise the?n." "In 
the administration of the Discipline, it is our duty 
to treat with offenders in tenderness and love, agree- 
ably to apostolic advice. ' Brethren, if a man be 
overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore 
such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering 
thyself lest thou also be tempted.'' And, according 
to Gospel order, _' If thy brother shall trespass 
against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee 
and him alone. If he shall hear thee, then thou 
hast gained thy brother ; but if he will not hear 
thee, then take with thee one or two more,' " &c. 

I then repeated such facts (which were not de- 
nied) as went to show that the course prescribed 
by the Discipline had been wholly disregarded in 
my case. 

The rule of Discipline under which the overseers 
profess to have acted, will be found in the Book, 
page 86, and is as follows : — 

" Should any of our members print or publish 
any writing against the advice of the Meeting for 
Sufferings, or which tends to excite disunity and 



57 

discord amongst us, they should be treated with ; 
and if they cannot be convinced of the impropriety 
of their conduct, and condemn the same to the satis- 
faction of the Monthly Meeting, they should be dis- 
owned." 

I slated that I considered this clause as intended 
to apply to the publication of Books only, and not 
to ephemeral matter, such as may be published in 
a newspaper. The rule is placed under the head 
of " Books," and could not with reason or propriety 
be brought to bear upon our case ; but even grant- 
ing that my construction was not correct, the hasty 
proceedings of the overseers were contrary to all 
previous practice, and to the intent and spirit of 
the Discipline. It was alleged that they considered 
themselves bound to take the cases forward when 
they did, and were not at liberty to exercise their 
own discretion in the matter, because the Discipline 
says, " Should any of our members print or publish 
any writing, * * * which tends to excite disunity or 
discord amongst us, they should be treated with ; 
and if they cannot be convinced of the impropriety 
of their conduct, and condemn the same to the satis- 
faction of the Monthly Meeting, they should be dis- 
owned." 

I mentioned that my confidence in the sincerity 
of such an assertion was very limited, inasmuch 
as Charles Marriott was given to understand, that 
if he would not submit to a reappointment on the 
Executive Committee of the Anti-Slavery Society, 



58 

his case should not be taken forward at all ; and it 
was postponed for one month on that account ; but 
he having been subsequently reappointed on that 
Committee, his case was taken forward. 

I further contended that the charge was not well- 
founded. My opponents had taken for granted the 
very fact that they had failed to prove, and which, I 
presume, could not be proved. The paper alluded 
to, I conceive, has no such tendency as was imputed 
to it. It was not calculated to excite disunity and 
discord in the Society, as a very large number of 
the most respectable friends, who were much more 
familiar with its columns than my adversaries, and of 
course much better qualified to judge, could testify. 

In addition to the foregoing views of the case, I 
presented others to the consideration of the Com- 
mittee, some of which I have incidentally thrown 
out in the preceding part of this narrative. I will 
now, with as little repetition as possible, state the 
reasons which have governed me in coming to the 
conclusion, that the decision of the Yearly Meeting 
in my case was erroneous. 

In the first place, I consider that the rule of Dis- 
cipline under which my case was taken forward, 
was wholly misapplied ; believing that it was in- 
tended to apply to Books, and not to such articles 
as may appear in a newspaper. This, however, 
may be considered as a matter of opinion, in which 
I may be mistaken. And supposing me to be wrong 
in this view, I considered, 



60 

That it was not proved in any way that the Na- 
tional Anti-Slavery Standard was calculated to ex- 
cite disunity and discord in the Society. On the 
contrary, it is a paper, the character of which for 
puriiy of morals, excellence of taste, and intellectual 
superiority, is certainly not exceeded, and perhaps 
hardly equalled by any periodical extant. This is 
attested by the fact, that it is supported by a large 
subscription list, composed of the names of many 
of the most exemplary and enlightened men and 
women in the country, among whom are a gi'eat 
number of the members of the Society of Friends 
of both divisions, embracing numerous ministers, 
elders, overseers, and others occupying prominent 
positions in the Society. And the fact must also 
be remembered that, as one of the Executive Com- 
mittee, I had no control over the editorial columns 
of the paper, having no right at any time to inspect 
or interfere with matter which the regular editor 
had prepared for it. It was a thing for which I 
could not be held responsible, and over which I 
could exercise no authority. 

Again, I assume that there was error on the part 
of the overseers in their omission to treat with us 
according to Gospel order, which is so clearly 
recognised and enforced by the Discipline. And 
further, that the Preparative Meeting erred in re- 
jecting the proposition which was made to return 
the case to the overseers for reconsideration, and to 
give such friends as felt interested an opportunity 



60 

to confer with me on the subject : this proposition 
being generally united with by the Meeting, but 
some of the overseers refusing to have any thing 
further to do with the matter, though they had not 
treated with me on the subject of the complaint ac- 
cording to Discipline. 

I allege that there was further error in the mem- 
bers of the Monthly Meeting of New-York being 
permitted to take an active part in the proceedings 
of the Quarterly Meetingj on the appeal from their 
own decision. 

There was also error in the conduct of my oppon- 
ents, in preparing a slanderous document filled with 
matter wholly out of the record of the Monthly 
Meeting, which was sent by one of the overseers 
to a member of the Committee appointed by the 
Quarterly Meeting to hear the appeal, and other- 
wise circulated for the purpose of injuring my cause 
and character, without giving me an opportunity of 
knowing anything of its contents. This document 
was thus used v^^hile my appeal was pending, which 
went to show that my accusers thought they had 
not made out their case, and that they should fail, 
without the introduction of false and extraneous 
matter. 

And I further suggest, that as a majority of the 
Committee of the Yearly Meeting did not decide 
in favor of confirming the decision of the subordi- 
nate meetings, it was contrary to all precedent with 
which I am acquainted, for the Yearly Meeting to 



61 

sanction tlie confirmation ; as according to the prin- 
ci])les upon which appeals are conducted in the 
Society of Friends, the body of the meeting are 
presumed to be ignorant of the facts, merits or de- 
merits of the case. I ought to add, that the same 
disorder was manifested in the Yearly Meeting that 
was practised in Westbury Quarterly Meeting ; the 
members of that meeting claimed the right, and 
actually took part in deciding the case, notwith- 
standing they had previously passed upon it. 

I think tliere was a case in the Yearly Meeting 
of Philadelphia a few years since, in which a report 
was made by a Committee on an appeal, signed 
by a majority of those present, confirming the dis- 
ownmenl by the inferior Meetings. The Yearly 
Meeting, on finding that some of the Committee 
were absent at the time of signing the report, and 
that it was not signed by more than half of the 
whole number of the Committee, without any hesi- 
tation agreed to reverse the decision, and the Ap- 
pellant was reinstated a member of the Society. 
And I presume such would be the course adopted 
by any Yearly Meeting where every efTort had not 
been made by means of out-door intrigue and mali- 
cious misrepresentation to prejudice the minds of 
the members of the body against the Appellant. 

It may here be a suitable place to remark, that 

the Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends in 

London, in order to guard against abuses which 

may be practised against the rights of the Appellant, 

6 



62 

and to give every fair opportunity to the accused, 
require, in order to confirm a disownment by an in- 
ferior Meeting, that the report shall be signed by at 
least two-thirds of the Committee appointed to hear 
the appeal. 

When every thing connected with the case is 
fully understood, the reader will not feel so much 
at a loss to understand why the Quarterly and Year- 
ly Meeting's Committees confirmed the decision of 
the Monthly Meeting, and why it should have been 
sanctioned by the Yearly Meeting itself, when a 
majority of its Committee did not report in favor of 
such a measure. 

From the time of my disownment until the 
Quarterly Meeting which decided my appeal, took 
place, some of the Members of the Monthly Meet- 
ing of New-York made freciuent and repeated threats 
that they would withdraw from the Society if I 
should be reinstated. Every possible means that 
could be devised were put in operation to prevent 
a reversal of the decision. In addition to the slan- 
derous " Explanation " of which I have spoken, 
and which was sent by one of the overseers of New- 
York Monthly Meeting to a member of the Quar- 
terly Meeting's Committee on Long Island, where 
all the Members of the Committee resided, except 
one who lived in New-Bedford : the subject was 
made a matter of almost constant and exciting con- 
versation, accompanied with the most invidious 
aspersions of my character. Strenuous efforts were 



made to promulgate the idea, that the subject of 
Abolition had nothing to do with the disownment 
of James S. Gibbons and myself. This cannot be 
believed by any one conversant with the prominent 
features of the case. In addition to the proofs ex- 
hibited in the official proceedings, it was frequently 
asserted that every Abolitionist belonging to New- 
York Monthly Meeting, should be disowned. As 
far back as the autumn of 1840, two very respect- 
able Friends, strangers, who had been spending 
a few days in the city, called on me, and during 
their short stay, one of them inquired of me if I was 
aware that friends of the Monthly Meeting to which 
I belonged intended that I should be disowned ? I 
replied, that I was not acquainted with the fact, 
and asked upon what ground the disownment was 
to take place. He asid, " For thy Abolition ; but 
they will not be able to do it for that, so they are 
going to get hold of something else." I was well 
aware of the hostility of many Friends in this city to 
the cause of Emancipation ; but as I am not in the 
habit of paying attention to floating rumors, I gave 
but little attention to the suggestion, not then think- 
ing that it was so soon to be realized. I have not 
the least doubt that some excellent individuals of the 
Quarterly Meeting's Committee really believed, that 
in case the decision of the Monthly Meeting was 
reversed, there would have been a disruption in the 
Quarterly Meeting. In speaking of the subject, 
one member of the Committee remarked that, of the 



64 

two evils he chose the least. Although many, and 
some among my adversaries seemed to think that the 
decision would be reversed by the Quarter, yet I 
never thought such would be the case. I was too 
well aware of the character and extent of the means 
ihat would be put into active and efficient operation 
to eflect a different result. And 1 have the best 
assurance that some of that Committee who signed 
the report in favor of confirmation, have seen the 
case in its true aspect, and most sincerely regret 
the decision which they were induced to be instru- 
mental in producing. 

The subject was kept alive in the manner adverted 
to until the Yearly Meeting. Through correspond- 
ence and other means, every effort to prejudice my 
case was continued. These efforts were not con- 
fined within the range of New-York Yearly Meet- 
ing. It was determined that every part of the 
country that was accessible, should be trained and 
prepared in such way as would exert all possible 
influence against my case by the time the Yearly 
Meeting should come round. In illustration of this 
assertion, I will mention an instance, which must 
inevitably reflect shame and disgrace on those con- 
cerned in the measure. An embassador from 
Flushing, on Long Island, who w^as one of the 
Quarterly Meeting's Committee, and who signed 
the report confirming my disownment, attended the 
Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, having in his keep- 
ing a copy of the proceedings of the Monthly Meet- 



65- 

ing of New-York against me, which was read in 
companies when opportunity was presented, ac- 
companied with such remarks as his resources 
enabled him to make in support of tlie decision. 
I venture to say, that si;ch conduct during the pen- 
dency of an appeal, is witi:out parallel in the So- 
ciety of Fiiends. / ivas /efrised b}^ the Monthly 
Meeting a copy of the Committee's Report in my 
case ; and yet a copy of that Report and the other 
parts of the record, in the hand-writing of the clerk 
of the Meeting, were thus permitted to go abroad 
to effect ex-parte designs. I presume it was the 
official copy used by the Respondents of the Month- 
ly Meeting in my appeal. 

After my case was given to the Committee 
appointed by the Yearly Meeting to hear it, the 
Respondents of the Quarterly Meeting pursued 
such a course, as to extend the investigation through 
the greater part of the week, thus furnishing an 
opportunity for the action of those local influences 
which were so sedulously kept in operation to affect 
my case in the siiboRlinatc Meetings. Daring the 
week of the Yearly Meeting, the subject was much 
talked about at the houses of friends in the city, in 
the presence of large companies. To say that the 
measures adopted to injure my case were a species 
of tale-bearing and detraction in virulent form, 
would be but an inadequate definition of the conduct 
pursued. 

During the week of the Yearly Meeting, at a 
6* 



66 

Friend's house, where a considerable number of 
persons were assembled, some gross misrepresenta- 
tions were made respecting my character, which 
would have shocked the sense of propriety of a 
stranger belonging to another Yearly Meeting who 
was present, only that his feelings had become some- 
what inured to the impropriety, as he had, through 
the week, frequently witnessed such gross miscon- 
duct, and was convinced that it was one of the 
means employed by my adversaries to accomplish 
their design. Upon his showing his disapprobation 
of such conduct, he soon discovered that he was 
a " marked manP 

It certainly is not at all astonishing that my 
enemies should have succeeded in effecting their 
purpose. Such a wicked, malicious, and wanton 
scheme to carry out the determination of a fac- 
tion — such an extensive plan, and the perseverance 
in it, to slander, and if possible crush, individual 
character, were never equalled, I believe, in any 
proceedings since the first rise of the Society of 
Friends.* 

Knowing all this, it was not difficult to foresee 
what would be the probable result of my appeal. 
Still, I felt it to be my duty to carry it to the 



* Tlicreader will please to bear in mind, that from the time of 
my first interview with the overseers on third month, 29 th, 1841, to 
the time of the disownmcnt, not a hint was given, either by them 
or the Committee of the Monthly Meeting appomted in the case, 
of any other complaint or charge than that already specified. 



67 

Yearly Meeting, and place the responsibility where 
it belonged. 

James S. Gibbons, however, was unwilling to 
continue a controversy with those who had con- 
ducted the prosecution with so little regard for can- 
dour and correct principle. When he was publicly 
inqiiired of by the clerk of the Yearly Meeting 
whether he intended to prosecute his appeal, he 
remarked in substance as follows : — 

" I cannot answer that question either satisfac- 
torily to myself or intelligibly to the Meeting, with- 
out some words of explanation. When the decision 
of the Monthly Meeting that disowned me was 
announced, my own judgment dictated that I should 
quietly acquiesce therein, because I was well as- 
sured that the contest would be of a personal cha- 
racter — that there was no principle in the prosecu- 
tion. Having no taste for such controversy, and 
placing no value on the rights for which I should 
contend, if at all, and having not the approval of 
conscience, I should have retired, but for the ad- 
vice of my friends, to whom I condescended so far 
as to appeal to the Quarterly Meeting. I have now 
had an opportunity to test my former judgment by 
the light of experience, and it has been confirmed. 
The contest has been wholly of a personal cha- 
racter stimulated by prejudice. If I felt it to be a 
conscientious duty to proceed, no considerations 
personal to myself should deter me. But I do not. 
I cannot conscientiously maintain a public religious 



68 

connection with a body, which hke the Monthly 
Meeting of New-York, has trampled upon the rights 
of conscience, and despised the claims of humanity. 
It is inconsistent with the faithful discharge of my 
duties to my fellow-man to remain in such a con- 
nection. Especially has that Monthly Meeting 
repudiated the great testimony of Gospel freedom 
which called the Society of Friends into existence. 
Therefore I retire from it, and would request this 
body to think seriously on the condition of a Meet- 
ing which can act thus in repudiation of its own 
professed principles, and give a purely personal 
character to cases of appeal from its decision." 

My adversaries seem to think that because my 
disownment has been confirmed by the Quarterly 
and Yearly Meetings, they are relieved from all re- 
sponsibility in the matter, and that it is entirely unne- 
cessary to give themselves any further trouble in de- 
fending their course of conduct; or, in other words, 
that they may safely rest and take shelter under 
the " reputation of Society.''^ No one would more 
heartily rejoice than myself, in the persuasion, that 
that term carried with it the weight and significancy 
which attached to it in former years. The time 
was when the decision of a Monthl}^, Quarterly, or 
Yearly Meeting, was entitled to great respect. To 
say nothing of the weakness which has most la- 
mentably characterized these bodies for the last 
twenty-five years, and which has given rise to per- 
secution, disorganization and disaffection ; the his- 



69 

tory of the case now presented to the reader, must 
convince every dispassionate observer of events, 
that the character of the official acts of the different 
meetings of the Society, has lost much of its dignity 
and claim to respect, in consequence of the un- 
faithfulness, worldly-mindedness and misconduct of 
many of its members, who have assumed a posi- 
tion to which neither their religious experience, nor 
their attainments in moral excellence entitle them. 
i\Iuch has occurred of latter times to show that 
many of the proceedings in the Society are marked 
by as much out-door contrivance and worldly policy 
as are displayed in many of the movements in poli- 
tical government, and are as totally void of sound 
religious principle. The " reputation of Society,''^ 
degraded and injured as it has been by such con- 
duct as that of my persecutors, can furnish but a 
flimsy veil for such obviously evil doings as this 
narrative exhibits. Such a course as has been 
pursued by my adversaries, particularly in relation 
to the Explanation which has been alluded to, 
was a most unparalleled conspiracy, not only against 
private character, but also, so far as its influence 
extends, against the peace, reputation, and harmony 
of the Society at large. Well might we exclaim 
in the pointed and expressive language of Job, 
" Upright men shall be astonished at this, and the 
innocent shall stir up himself against the hypo- 
crite." 

Whatever may be the opinion of my readers 



70 

respecting my case, I think the fact must be very 
obvious, that the state of our Society is much to be 
deplored. Although the scheme of persecution 
which has been carried into effect against me, has 
doubtless been the work of a few individuals who 
were bitterly inimical to the cause of Emancipation, 
and were determined at all hazards to effect their 
plan of extirpation, yet it is greatly to be regretted 
that the prejudice against the cause of suffering 
humanity should have extended itself somewhat 
beyond the limits of New-York Monthly Meeting, 
into regions where a more consistent course of con- 
duct would be expected. In one meeting not far 
from the city of New-York, some young men left 
the house in a rude and disorderly manner, merely 
because a respectable colored man in company 
with one of their most estimable members, took a 
seat on a bench near the preacher's gallery. And 
a friend of excellent character and standing, at 
whose house some colored children were boarding, 
was requested by several prominent members to 
take them up stairs when he took them to Meeting, 
a part of the Meeting-house which was then, and 
had been for a long time entirely unoccupied ; when 
the congregation did not cover one half of the floor 
below. These innocent children, clean, tidy and 
respectable as they were, could not be permitted to 
occupy even the back bench on the lower floor of 
the Meeting-house without giving offence. We 
have even heard it asserted in the Yearly Meeting 



71 

that, \Ylien we ask llic dealers in human flesh to ma- 
numit llieir slaves, we ought to pay them for their 
property, for that tliey, the slave holders think they 
have as good a right to their slaves as they have to 
their horses and oxen. When such views are 
tolerated, not to say sanctioned, and when mem- 
bers are engaged extensively in business connections 
with slave-holders, or trade largely in the produce 
of slave-labor, we cannot marvel that those friends 
who have followed their conscientious convictions 
of duty in bearing a testimony against the evil of 
slavery, should be made the victims of a most un- 
relenting persecution. I am well aware that there 
are many country friends who are not engaged in 
this corrupt traffic ; but in consequence of their 
frequent and familiar intercourse with the city, too 
many have permitted their sensibility to its great 
wrong, to become in some measure blunted, and 
have remained disaffected in relation to the crying 
sin of oppression. 

It would have been supposed, that after my per- 
secutors had accomplished their scheme, so far as 
to succeed in having the decision of New-York 
Monthly Meeting confirmed by the Quarterly and 
Yearly Meetings, their efforts to slander my cha- 
racter would have ceased. But far otherwise is 
the fact. During a visit which I lately made in 
some of the counties of Pennsylvania, I discovered 
that the tongue of the traducer had been busy there. 
Some individuals residing in and near the city of 



72 

New-York, who had left their homes professedly 
as messengers of Gospel love, so far forgot the 
legitimate objects of their mission, as to spend too 
much of their time in endeavouring to convey very 
erroneous ideas in relation to my case and the cir- 
cumstances connected with it. Such reprehensible 
conduct is productive of but little satisfaction, and 
generally recoils with redoubled force upon the 
heads of the defamers. In the language of the 
proverb, I would kindly remind such as are dis- 
posed thus to labor in the prolific vineyard of de- 
traction, that " he that is first in his own cause 
seemeth just ; but his neighbor cometh and search- 
elh him." 

Had the movements in my case been commenced 
and continued under a really honest concern for the 
support and maintenance of the Disciphne and tes- 
timonies of the Society, I should have quietly rested 
under the result, however much I might have dif- 
fered with my friends as to the propriety and cor- 
rectness of their proceeding. But the whole con- 
duct of my adversaries, in connection with my case, 
and in other matters, impels me to a different 
belief. Their extreme sensibility as to members 
mixing with those not of the Society, seems to 
receive its whole stimulus from their determined 
hostility to the cause of Emancipation. It is true 
that although friends of New- York Monthly Meet- 
ing mix very little in social, moral, or religious in- 
tercourse with other Christian denominations, yet 



h 

in any thing pertaining to " the craft of wealth," 
the shackles of sectarian exclusiveness fall to the 
ground, and he by whom they were carried knows 
nothing but the most free action. Is there a Bank- 
rupt Act to be repealed, so that the creditor may 
have a tighter grasp upon the body and goods of 
his debtor ? Our public journals show who are 
prompt and active in effecting the measure. Look 
at the records of our Banking, Insurance, and Rail- 
Road Companies, and see who are leading and 
active directors. The regular trips of the Long 
Island rail-road cars were not long since suspended, 
that they might be employed in conveying persons 
to the race-ground. And they were so employed. 
The price of passage was reduced to a very low 
rate, to induce a greater number to attend the races, 
and many thousands of the most dissolute and licen- 
tious were thus furnished with increased facilities 
of conveyance to that scene of cruelty, dissipation, 
immorality and riot. Sorrowful and surprising as 
it may appear, several members of the Society of 
Friends, prominent characters too, are now, or were 
at the time, members of the Board of Directors of 
this Company. The being concerned in the support 
of such immorality may not have a tendency to 
excite disunity and discord in the Society of 
Friends ; but if it is not productive of a ten-fold 
worse abomination, I am totally incapable of form- 
ing any judgment upon matters in themselves self- 
evident. - ■ ' "• - ' 
7 



74 

No one can more sincerely regret than I do, the 
degenerate condition of any portion of the Society 
of Friends; and these facts are alhided to mere- 
ly with the view of sustaining the position, that 
my disownment was effected to gratify the vin- 
dictive feehngs of some bitter individuals whose 
hostility to the cause of Emancipation far exceeded 
their zeal for the welfare of the Society, the main- 
tenance of its Discipline, or the support of its Tes- 
timonies. Irrespective of my own persecutions and 
trials, I deeply regret that the state of Society in 
this Yearly Meeting should have been weak enough 
to permit such a gross imposition to be practised 
upon it, as the proceedings of my adversaries, who 
were determined to carry out their own wills and 
purposes at any hazard, and at every sacrifice. 
William Penn most aptly says, " Have a care of 
novelties and airy changeable people, the conceited, 
censorious; and puit up, who atlast have always shown 
themselves to be clouds without rain, and wells with- 
out water, that will rather disturb and break the 
peace and fellowship of the church, where they 
dwell, than not have their wills and ways take place." 

It has also been a cause of much sorrow, to see the 
ministry among us so diverted from a practical cha- 
racter into that which lias been the means of crea- 
ting " discord a7id disunity in the Society^'' Had 
it been directed against usury, extortion, detraction, 
defamation and falsehood, instead of opposing the 
cause of excellence and truth, its fruits might have 



75 

been much more abundant in good. But the course 
which has been taken in attacking the friends of 
Humanity and Right, has given great cause of dissat- 
isfaction throughout the country, as has been seen by 
the many " Disclaimers''^ which have been issued 
by the different bodies of Friends in this and other 
Yearly Meetings. The condition of the other por- 
tion of the Society of Friends in Indiana, which 
has resulted in disorganization, should serve as a 
warning to Friends in other places. 

In preparing this narrative, I have omitted many 
facts which have a bearing on the proceedings of 
my adversaries, and which would go to show the 
true character of the controversy, and would place 
my persecutors in a position that could not be mis- 
conceived or misunderstood, but which I have pur- 
posely withheld, and most sincerely hope circum- 
stances may never render necessary for mc to 
publish. 

It is due to truth that I should say that there are 
many honest-hearted friends who see and deplore 
the state of things among us, without being able to 
discover or apply a remedy. Some of the members of 
the Monthly Meeting of New-York, who are in no 
way connected with the Anti-Slavery movement, 
condemn the proceedings in my case ; and there 
are besides, many within the limits of the Yearly 
Meeting, who sincerely regret the course taken 
against Charles Marriott, James S. Gibbons, and 
myself. 



76 

What is the position now presented by the So- 
ciety of Friends ? A few years ago they were 
foremost in the cause of Emancipation, biit having 
cleared their own skirts of the evils of slavery, too 
many of them have settled down at ease, as though 
there was nothing more for them to do. Some feel 
a kind of sectarian pride, and seem to consider it a 
disparagement to mingle with persons not con- 
nected with their own religious denomination, in 
works of philanthropy, while they have no scru- 
ples in joining hands with such, in all schemes of 
pecuniary emolument. Some again, are disposed 
to do nothing, and settle down self-condemned for 
their own unfaithfulness, while they witness the 
faithfulness of others. 

Another class of the Society feel themselves 
bound to hold up the testimony against slavery, 
and to labor in the cause of Emancipation, though 
it must be through much contumely and reproach. 
And what adds greatly to the trial of those who de- 
sire to be honestly performing the measure of ser- 
vice allotted to them, is, the opposition of those to 
whom they have a right to look for help, counte- 
nance and support, in this righteous cause. Why 
will our brethren continue their opposition ? " Whe- 
ther it be right, in the sight of God, to hearken unto 
you more than unto God, judge ye." 

In the best feelings of which my heart is suscep- 
tible, I would warn my friends against persecuting 
tender consciences. It is hateful in the sight of 



77- 

God and good men. Cease your opposition to 
those who conscientiously believe themselves called 
upon to " Open their mouths for the dumb in the 
cause of all such as are appointed to destruction," 
and who have none to help them. As you love the 
prosperity of truth, as you desire the peace of your 
own minds, above all, as you desire the love and 
favor of God, pause before you take another step in 
this unholy warfare. 

I must now draw to a close. I have written 
plainly, and only with a view to set forth the truth. 
I can truly say that I harbor no unkind or hostile feel- 
ings towards those who have distinguished them- 
selves as my persecutors, and have arrayed them- 
selves in battle against me. It is true that I have been 
placed among the perils of false brethren, and have 
been hunted as a beast of prey ; yet I am more 
than willing to leave my pursuers to the just wit- 
ness in their own souls, who will never deceive 
them, nor leave them at ease in their sins ; but 
w'\\\ render judgment and justice according to their 
works. Neither dissimulation nor hypocrisy will 
cover their iniquity before that tribunal where jus- 
tice is awarded, and where they and I shall appear. 

Several months have elapsed since the decision 
which I have reviewed, was made. During which 
time, I have given the whole subject much patient and 
calm reflection in all its bearings. I have honestly 
examined my own heart and motives, and have never 
for a moment wavered in my opinion as to the acts 
7* 



7S 

which have been the ostensible ground of the pro- 
ceedings against me. I have felt, and now feel, 
nothing but the most vmmingled satisfaction and 
peace of mind in taking a retrospect of the course 
which I have pursued. I have meditated in the 
cool of the day, and I would hope, free from im- 
proper excitement. I have reached that point in 
my earthly pilgrimage, at which the force of the 
passions becomes much abated, and wherein my 
aspirations to the Giver of all good become stronger 
and stronger, that I may be preserved in the path 
which will confer upon me true peace. My already 
multiplied years give me significant intimation that 
it cannot be long before I shall cease to be affected 
by earthly vicissitudes ; for, at farthest, " When a few 
years are come, then I shall go the way whence I 
shall not return." In view of this, my disfranchise- 
ment as a member of New- York Monthly Meeting 
can be of but little consequence as regards myself 
personally. 

It cannot be expected, in the present condition of 
that Meeting, and my views in relation to it, that 
I could be benefited by being connected with it, 
or that I could render any service to its mem- 
bers. And although my enemies have succeeded 
in obtaing a confirmation of their proceedings by 
this Yearly Meeting, I cannot feel that I am separated 
in spirit or feeling from the great body of the 
Society of Friends. In my extended intercourse 
with Fricndd in different p^rts of the States of New- 



79 

York, and Pennsylvania, and other places, I have 
had copious and irresistible testimony to the con- 
trary. I feel and know that the bond of fellowship 
is not broken. And as regards the mere external 
connection or right of membership, I have had 
assurances which cannot be mistaken, that it is at 
my service at any time when I may think proper to 
request it. How or when I may accept of this 
kindness, is matter for future consideration. While 
I have sorely felt the wrongs inflicted upon me by 
my adversaries, I have received many unexpected 
evidences of sympathy, kindness and regard, for 
which I feel deeply grateful. They have strength- 
ened my resolution not to be deterred from following 
the course of duty, while they have served as a re- 
buke to the wrong-doing of my enemies and perse- 
cutors. 

One thing, however, I am free to confess. Con- 
duct such as has been pursued in my case, has very 
naturally had a tendency to create disaffection on 
the part of many Friends, particularly in the minds 
of the young, and has caused them to err in at- 
tributing to the Society as a body, that which 
has been the unhallowed work of a faction of mis- 
guided individuals. This I sincerely deplore. 
Although I have had meted out to me "false burdens 
and causes of banishment," yet one consideration 
has given me greater anxiety and concern than any 
thing else connected with my disownment. I 
greatly feared that the unchristian conduct toward^ 



80 

me would have a tendency to unsettle the minds of 
my children and grandchildren, and weaken their 
attachment to the Society of Friends, which I have 
so long and studiously endeavored to cultivate and 
confirm ; but which the doings of ray adversaries 
has been so pre-eminently calculated to diminish. 
Towards guarding against this evil, I feel that I 
have faithfully done my part. 

I cannot close, without embracing the present 
opportunity to declare my unqualified attachment 
to the Society of Friends. My admiration for its 
great leading principles, my faith in its simple, but 
elevating doctrines, my love for its inward and ex- 
ternal testimonies, my confidence in the efficacy 
and usefulness of its discipline, when administered 
with pure hearts and clean hands, remain whol- 
ly unabated and imshakcn. I have ever looked 
upon them as calculated to accomplish much for 
humanity. In taking a retrospect of my past life, 
in looking at its vicissitudes — which have been 
various in kind, and almost without limit in number — 
my most cherished recollections, my sweetest asso- 
ciations, unnumbered incidents that iiave heightened 
my joy, and have lessened the bitterness and poig- 
nancy of many a cup of sorrow, have bound me in 
close affection to that religious communion which 
was the choice of my early days, and the principles 
of which shall be the strength, support, and gladness 
of my latter years. I have spent much time in its 
service, as the records of all its disciplinary meet- 



SI 

ings amply attest. In its brighter days T have re- 
joiced in its prosperity ; in its more depressed 
condition, when clouds have lowered, and storms 
have threatened, I have never for a moment turned 
my back, but have gladly hazarded every thing 
personal to myself, in its defence. And now, 
although excluded from its Meetings for Discipline 
at home, yet I have never felt at liberty to alter my 
liabits of diligently attending those for worship. 
My inclination, my sense of duty, my views of 
proper example, all forbid my making any change 
in this respect. Whatever good I have attained in 
the Society, or in following my convictions of duty, 
has not been the work of my adversaries, nor can I 
conscientiously permit them to take it away. My 
sincere desire is to know what is right for me to do, 
and then to raise my eyes to the Hills from whence 
Cometh all our help, for grace and strength to enable 
me to perform it, regardless of fear, favor, or affec- 
tion on the one hand, or persecution and bitter re- 
viling on the other. 

I most ardently desire that my friends and brethren 
who have been called to labor for the redemption of 
those who are held in captivity, may not be alarmed 
or intimidated at what has befallen others who have 
felt it their duty to engage in the work of liumanity. 
Steadily pursue the path that may be opened before 
you, and permit nothing to turn you aside from it. 
The Society of Friends have it in their power to do 
much, without in the least departing from their 



82 

principles or testimonies. In what better, nobler, 
or holier work can they engage ? Some efforts 
have been made in times past which liave been 
blessed, and I cannot persuade myself that this people 
will turn a deaf ear to the cry of oppression. And 
however much we may feel discouraged at the 
course taken by those of whom better things should 
have been expected, let us hope for the dawning of 
a brighter day. Let every one do his part in the 
great reform for which we hope, and not turn away 
from the field of labor. " Let us not be weary in 
well doing : for in due season we shall reap, if we 
faint not." 

In the language of a modern writer, I would say, 
" With every endeavor to introduce a more active 
spirit of virtue amongst us, I deeply sympathize. I 
hold that all the physical and intellectual powers 
we possess should be dedicated to the furtherance 
of good, and the very ' possession of them is an 
obligation upon us to exercise them — that our un- 
derstandings are amongst the noblest gifts of our 
Divine Father, and that we are bound to employ 
them at all hours and at all times, in his service. 
It is a false, and has been a most pernicious notion, 
that because " the carnal mind is enmity against 
God" — i. e. the carnal state of the mind — therefore 
our minds in their natural capacities, are unfit to 
serve him. The maxim of "not running in our 
own will to do good," has done infinite harm. If 
we run with a desire to do good, we shall run well ; 



83 

for the very desire of good springs from the source 
of good. My opinion, therefore, is, that " to be 
instant in season and out of season," is the law and 
the obhgation of the Christian ; and our daily ex- 
perience shows that obedience to that law is largely 
blessed. I say, therefore, that I deeply sympathize 
with all endeavors to introduce a greater tendency 
to virtuous action in our Society. I would have 
none leave it — I would have none lopped off who 
hold with us the few real essentials of Christian 
association ; but would have us all stand together 
in the spirit of an enlarged love, for the cause of 
religion and of man." 

ISAAC T. HOPPER. 
New-York, 5th mo. 1843. 



APPENDIX. 



[See page 16.] ' - 

THE SOCIETY OP FRIENDS. DEVELOPMENTS. 

To the Editor of the Standard : 

" Strike ! but conceal the hand !" was the favorite max- 
im of one who formed the vain and impious resolution to ex- 
terminate Christianity, and to " crush" its Divine Founder. 
The spirit which dictated this maxim, however, was not pe- 
culiar to its author ; nor are there wanting those, even at the 
present day, who, if less daring than the Infidel philosopher, 
and less capable of doing injury to society, are nevertheless 
governed, in their warfare upon truth, by the same assassin- 
like policy. An example is now before me, which I am re- 
luctantly constrained to notice. 

It is known to most of the readers of the Standard, that 
during the last winter, I published a pamphlet, entitled, 
'* Correspondence between Oliver Johnson and George F. 
White, a Minister of the Society of Friends ; with an Ap- 
pendix ;" the object of which was to refute certain charges 
brought by G. F. White, in his public ministrations, against 
abolitionists and others. As this pamphlet has been exten- 
sively circulated, I need only say here, that it furnished the 
most ample evidence, from his own pen and lips, and from 
other sources, that, under a profession of Divine inspiration, 
he had made statements, which, on investigation, were 
proved to be untrue ; and that, in other respects, his deport- 
ment to say the least, had been very extraordinary. 

Hitherto, there has been no open attempt, either on the 



66 

part of G. F. White or his supporters, to impeach the truth 
or fairness of the statements contained in the paaiphlet ; 
although if his conduct had been capable of vindication, the 
excitement created by the publication, and the effects it has 
produced in the Society, would seem to have rendered the 
motives for a defence peculiarly strong- When nothing 
available cari be said, it is surely the part of wisdom to be 
silent. 

But while there has been no open and manly attempt to 
reply to the pamphlet, the tongue and i\\epen have Been em- 
ployed, in private, to diminish, as far as possible, the influ- 
ence it is calculated to exert, by assailing the character and 
motives of the author. Although I had been frequently ad- 
vised of the false reports which the supporters of G. F. 
White had put in circulation, they did not reach me in a 
shape sufficiently tangible to call for a defence, until I receiv- 
ed from a friend a copy of a letter, purporting to have been 
written by ROBERT HICKS, of this city, to Samuel Grif- 
fith, of Mount Pleasant, Ohio. This letter having been ex- 
tensively circulated, in private, in various parts of the coun- 
try,* where it was impossible for those who saw it to know 
what I might say in reply, has excited jjrejudices not only 
unfavorable to myself, but injurious to the Anti-Slavery 
cause. I have been assured by Friends, in whose judgment 
I have great confidence, that I ought, by all means, in justice 
to the cause of truth no less than to myself, to publish this 
letter, with a suitable reply to its numerous misstatements. I 
therefore send it to you with some reluctance, for insertion in 
the Standard.! ^y reply is subjoined in the form of notes. 

* I am told that a relative of the writer took a copy to the Genesee 
Yearly Meeting, w here it was read in various circles, in vindication of 
G. F. White, and to destroy confidence in me ! 

f A copy was sent to Robert Hicks, in proof, in order to afford him 
an opportunity to point out any errors of the copyist. As the proof 
was not returned, I take it for granted that he admits it to be a correct 
copy. 



97 

LETTER OF ROBERT HICKS TO SAMUEL GRIFFITH. 

New- York, 3d. mo. 26, 1841. 

Esteemed Friend, Samuel Griffith. 

In reading the correspondence between Oliver Johnson 
and Georjje F. White, &c., I perceive thy name is brought 
into notice by Oliver Johnson, and in such a way as possibly 
to subject thee to censure in the minds of some, who judge 
of the case as it is presented by him, without being acquaint- 
ed with the source from which it emanated. I address thee 
under a belief that thou wouldst be willing to learn something 
of the estimation in which he is held by Friends in this 
city.(i) 

It may be proper to premise that there are in our monthly 
meeting a few individuals, (numbering, perhaps, five or six 
male adults.) of whom Isaac T. Hopper, and James S. Gib- 
bons, his son-in-law, are the most active, who have been labor- 
ing with great zeal to draw our Society into modern abolition- 
ism, but have failed. They consider George F. White to be 
one of their principal obstacles, and against him are directed 
their greatest efforts. They have, until recently, professed 
warm friendship for him, and high esteem for his ministry ; 
while one of them has at the same time been defaming him 
by misrepresentations privately circulated. (2) 

Oliver Johnson is ostensibly the sole author of the pam- 
phlet ; but it is not doubted by Friends here, that he is a tool 
of these parties, employed by them to do that which they, as 
members of society dare not do themselves ; and he appears 
to be a pliant instrument for their purposes. (3) A short time 
prior to the correspondence, he was first noticed as a stranger, 
apparently between 30 and 40 years of age, attending our 
meeting in Rose street ; not known by us, with perhaps one 
or two exceptions — not even his name. When George F. 
White received his first letter, he had no knowledge of him, 
and first supposed him to be an honest inquirer ; but he soon 
discovered that the object was to entrap him. (4) Of this cor- 
respondence, being now public, I have little to say. (With 
regard to its correctness, George F. While says he cannot 
say, as he never read it, (5) though one of the pamphlets was 
sent him ) In reading the two last letters, I became suspi- 
cious that there was something wrong, and requested George 
to let me have the originals of Oliver Johnson's letters, togeth- 
er with the copies of his own in reply. On examining and com- 



88 

paring them with the pamphlet, I find many alterations, omis- 
sions, and additions.*(6) It would probably have been betier, 
had Georjje requested a personal interview, as he then could 
have judged of the motives of the inquirer and acted accord- 
ingly. Where both parties are known, it will do George no 
harm ; but it is not improbable that in son.e places it may lead 
to a prejudice in the minds of Friends against hun. It is 
here considered, that he followed the advice of a wise man 
formerly, " Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be 
wise in his own conceit."(7) 

The last letters, as published in the correspondence, are 
a review of the previous ones, and were designedly not sent 
to George until sent in a pamphlet form. They, with the 
appendix, abound in misrepresentations and falsehood. (8) 

On the non-resistance case, I need make no comments, 
as thou art better acquainted with it than I am. 1 will now 
pass to that of the Anti-Slavery case. In the communica- 
tion alluded to by Oliver Johnson, [i. e. the sermon at Rose 
street,] George F. White did not charge the whole body of 
abolitionists with maintaining tlie opinion that the only hope 
of the slave was not in God, &c., but in the Anti-Slavery 
Society. He stated that an anti-slavery society had passed 
such a resolution; (9) and he pronounced such a sentiment flat 
blasphemy. And can it be denied that it is so ? Can it be 
questioned that such a sentiment is an indignity to God ? I 
think it cannot ; but bear in mind, that although George 
calls this sentiment plasphemy, he calls no man a blasphemer. 
I have long sat under his ministry, and have travelled with 
him from home, and have never heard him do so. He says 
he never did it ; neither did he ever call any man a 
sinner. (10) He holds that a man may write or speak blas- 
phemy, and not be a plasphemer in the sight of his Maker; 
as, on the other hand, a man may swear that the Lord liveth, 
and therein swear falsely. Almost immediately on George's 
closing, Oliver Johnson arose and said — I believe that the 
Spirit of God(II) requires me to say, that what you have 
heard in relation to the Anti-Slavery Society, is untrue, &c. 

* I have been informed that Robert Hicks shows a paper purporting 
to be a true copy of the correspondence between Oliver Johnson and 
George F. White ; as far as that paper differs from the pamphlet, it is 
incorrect. The original letters are in my possession, and I will show 
then) to any person wishing to examine them. I. T. H. 



After Oliver Johnson took his seat, George acjain arose and 
stated, that he had vouchers to prove the truth of what he 
had asserted, and if any one would call at his house or store, 
he would show them, &c. Did this invitation include 
O. Johnson] I think not, certainly; it was to those wlio 
had heard him charged with falsehood, to come and judge for 
themselves, whether he or 0. JohiT^on had to'd the un- 
truth. (12) One important ptrt of the interview at George's 
house is entirely omitied in O. Jol.nsori's account of it. 
Believing that they wjuid r.^.ake such a report of it is to 
suit their design, before they left his house, George told 
J. S. Gibbons, that he was about to ask him one or two 
questions, which he desired him promptly to answer, to wit : 
whether he had seen anything in his manner, or heard any- 
thing in his language, during the interview, which he thought 
was unbecoming a minister of our religious society ? — if he 
haii witnessed anything in his manner, or in his language, 
that evinced bad temper ?( 13) James was embarrassed, 
and George pressed him for an answer. He repeated the 
question again. The only reply was, "Thee will not receive 
my friend" — " I can understand thee" — " I know how to 
take thee." Although George repeatedly requested Oliver 
Johnson to withdraw from his premises, (14) he remained 
with James S. Gibbons in the house for nearly an hour. (15.) 

The proof of George's assertion in relation to the anti- 
slavery resolution is to be found in the report of the proceed- 
ings of a meeting of the Junior Anti-Slavery Society, held 
at Temperance Hall, 1st mo. (Jan.) 3d, 1840, published in 
the Pennsylvania Freeman of 1st mo. 9th, 1810. As the 
paper may not be within thy reach, I will transcribe the 
full account, viz : 

" James G. Birncy delivered a powerful address, showing the 
sin of slavery under all circumstances. The following preamble 
and resolutions, offered by J. L. Hallowcll, were advocated by 
Gcrnt Smith, in an impressive speech. 

" Whereas, it is the belief of the members of this Society, that 
the plan proposed by the American Anti-Slavery Societ}-, and 
its au.xiiiurics, is the only one by which American slavery can be 
abolif^hcd ; therefore, 

" Resolved, That, in the language of our esteemed friend from 
New-York, we believe that the peaceful and bloodless termination 
of American slavery is not to be expected without a more entire 
consecration of property, and a more self-sacrificing spirit, than 
now characterizes Anerican abolitionists. 

" Resolved, That, as we believe the only hope of the slave is in the 

s* 



90 

anti-slaverz/ society, the abolitionists of the present day must con. 
tribute more hberally of their funds, if they expect to accomphsh 
their most glorious object, — the liberation from their chains of 
tliree millions of their fellow-countrymen. 

" The resolutions were unanimously adopted. Pledges were 
received to the amount of ^100, and -^45 86 additional 
collected, 

" Thomas S. Cavender, Secretary." 

I know not whether or no Oliver Johnson's assertion is 
true, " that this society is composed principally of minors, 
and memoers, too, of the Society of Friends." The liutli 
or falsehood of this assertion has no bearing on the truth of 
George's statement. But thou wilt notice, that there were 
present, and participated in the proceedings of the meeting, 
two of their most prominent men in the whole Union, James 
G. Birney and Gerrit Smith. The former delivered a 
powerful address, and the very resolution in question was 
advocated by Gerrit Smith, in an impressive speech, and 
passed unanimously. On examining the resolution, thou wilt 
find that George might have called attention to another part, 
to wit : " their most glorious object" of the anti-slavery 
society was to be accomplished by a more liberal contribution 
of funds ; a clear distinction between their glory and the glory 
of the Creator.(lG) 

The attack made by O. Johnson, upon George F. White, 
was a premeditated one. (17) Isaac T. Hopper was cogni- 
zant of this fact; (16) and on the morning when it was 
made, several members of his family were at the meeting, 
(19) (not the one to which they belong, and which they 
usually attend,) (20) apparently with the view of witnessing 
the outrage. Isaac professes to disapprove of the disturbance 
of the meeting, and to be exceedingly grieved at the pub- 
lication of the correspondence, and entirely denies having 
had anything to do with it; but (). Johnson says that Isaac 
furnished him with the cases he has cited ("21) to prove that 
early Friends unlawfully disturbed the meetings of other 
denominations ; and thou canst bear witness that he has 
endorsed Oliver Johnson's character, (22) (as a respectable, 
worthy man,) for the very purpose of assisting him in 
obtaining materials that are used in his publication. O. 
Johnson's home is at Isaac T. Hopper's house, and they 
occupy the same office. The information, that Isaac received 
a salary for his services, was given by himself — the amount 
stated, six hundred dollars. 



n 

In letter No. 12, Johnson seems to demur to the charj^o 
of hypocrisy and cant, on the ground that the proof brought 
by George is not sufficient to sustain it ; but those who are 
acquainted with the foUowing circumstance, will not deem 
that George was very wide of the mark in making the 
charge; as I think it will be difficult to find stronger proof 
of hypocrisy and canting. A short time since, a worthy 
Friend, who is far advanced in years, very infirm in body, 
and still more infirm in mind, had a good deal to say in one 
of our public meetings, at which were many strangers, in 
is such a way as to be exceedingly trying to all who have a 
concern for the good ordering of our meetings. During the 
course of his remarks, O. Johnson was repeatedly observed 
to exhibit lightness of behaviour, &c. In a person feeling 
in no degree the importance of the occasion on which we 
were convened, and having no concern for the good order of 
our meetings, this conduct was not to be wondered at, as 
the discourse was calculated to lead to such a result. But 
the unpleasant feature of the case is this : At the close of 
the meeting, as the aged Friend was passing from the house, 
^ person introduced him to O. Johnson, at the same time 
saying something that was not fully understood ; but it was 
believed to be, that O. Johnson was a warm friend of the 
slave, &c. The aged Friend shook him heartily by the 
hand, saying, that in that thing he had full unity with him. 
Here was a chance to make capital, too good to be lost ; 
and how was it improved ? Why, O. Johnson replied, — 

Mr. , I am glad to be introduced to you ; it gives me 

much pleasure ; and I feel best satisfied to say, that your 
communications, both this morning, and on former occasions, 
have been very edifying to my feelings, and comforting to 
my spirit, &c. Now I have not the slightest objection to O. 
Johnson's being edified and comforted by such a communica- 
tion ; but his conduct during its delivery did not comport 
with such a state of mind. 

Regarding his accusation of the founders of our Society 
disturbing the worship of other denominations, he might, 
with equal justice, accuse Wiiliain Penn and William Mead 
of a breach of the peace, in addressing a jury, at the Old 
Bailey, in 1670, under the tyrannical government of Charles 
2d, and urging upon them to maintain their rights, and the 
rights of all Englishmen, under their great charter or con- 
etitution. Fi lends acted under the same necessity, in sup- 
porting their legal and religious rights, when they entered 



92 

the churches of which they were members, and at which 
they were required bv law to attend, and there spoke to the 
people after the regular service. ('24) There may be one or 
two exceptions, in which Friends interrupted the service, 
which was only a breach of the church renulations ; and in 
all the commitments and imprisonments in that day, I have 
found none for the breach of any law agamst disturbing per- 
sons assembled for divine worship ; ("25) but very many for 
refusing to take an oath for holding unlawful assemblies, or 
conventicles, and speaking therein, and for non-attensance 
at the church, and for not paying the fine for non-attendance. 
I know of no instance on record of their attending at the 
church for any purpose, after they became a Society. (26) 
How different was the conduct of O. Jobnson, in coming 
into the meeting of a Society in which he had no right, (27) 
and slandering that Society, in the presence of its members 
others, (28) in justification of bis own outrage in asserting 
that one of its ministers had declared that which was un- 
true. (29; 

P. S. Since the foregoing was written, I perceive that 
the last " Anti-Slavery Standard," published in this city, (on 
5th-day last,) contains a violent attack upon our Society. 
(30) This paper is the official organ of the American Anti- 
Slavery Society, and is under the management of the Ex- 
ecutive Committee of said Society, the Committee consisting 
of some eight or ten persons : James S. Gibbons, (Chair- 
man,) Charles JMarriott, (Secretary,) Isaac T. Hopper, 
(Treasurer,) of their Society, — the three being members of 
our Monthly Meeting ; and they, with one exception of a 
person not a member of our Society, are the only residents 
of the Executive Committee in the city. (HI) The parties 
admit tbat they are the Acting Executive Committee ; the 
others {occasionally attend when in town ; and they support 
and direct the publication of the paper. By this thou wilt 
perceive that the paper is supported and directed by mem- 
bers of Society, they being three out of four of the acting 
part of the coimnittee. 

T Uese persons, after having made efforts to introduco 
their agents and lecturers among Fiiends in this vicinity, 
and having utterly failed, have now commenced an attack 
upon us ; and it is to be feared that Friends living at a dis- 
tance., not being acquainted with circumstances that tran- 
spire here, have written letters, perhaps confidentially, which 
are liable to be made use of to their injury, and the injury of; 
their services in Society. 



93 

I send thee a copy of the paper. I presume no (public) 
notice will be taken of this attack, or of the correspondence — 
I mean by way of reply to it. (Si) 

P. S. 2d \'.h mo — The cases of Isaac T. Hopper and 
James S. Gibbons were this day reported to the preparative 
meeting, and referred to the monthly meeting, charged with 
being concerned in the support of a paper having a tendency 
to create disunity and discord amongst us. 

Thee is at liberty to make any use of this letter, if it will 
be of any advantage to thee. (33) 



NOTES IN REPLY TO THE FOREGOING LETTER. 

(1.) Was it ingenuous to attempt to impair confidence in 
the truthfulness of what I had said in the pamphlet, by state- 
ments respecting the " estimation " in which I was held by 
those whose circumstances rendered them peculiarly liable 
to imbibe prejudices against me ■? Certainly it would have 
been very remarkable, if the warm supporters of G. F. 
White had not been offended with me for publicly contra- 
dicting, in a manner however unexceptionable, statements 
made by him under a profession of Divine inspiration. 
Theij would not be likely, under such circumstances, surely, 
to hold me in better " estimation " than were the early Friends 
by those whose doctrines and practices they so pointedly 
condemned. Suppose, that, instead of replying directly to 
the Statements of Robert Hicks, I were to attempt to impair 
confidence in his character, by reporting the "estimation" 
in which he is held by those who are bitterly prejudiced 
against him : would not every candid person say, that such 
a course was unfair, and that it furnished presumptive evi- 
dence that I was in the wrong 1 So it appears to me. I 
submit whether the rule will not work both ways. 

(2.) The writer of this letter is an overseer of the New- 
York Monthly Meeting. If he can substantiate what he here 
asserts, why has he not dealt with the individual alluded to 
as the discpline requires ] Why is such a charge " privately 



94 

circulated " within the limits of three or four yearly meet- 
ings ? 

(3) Perhaps all this is " not douhted " by those " Friends 
here,'' who believe George F. White to he divinely inspired ; 
but others, I apprehend, will not estimate very highly the 
candor of one who can accuse such men as Isaac T. Hop- 
per, Charles Marriott, and James S. Gibbons, of employing 
" a tool," to do that which they " dare not do themselves." 
So far as the imputation relates to myself, I simply deny 
that it has any foundation in truth. 

(4.) Those who have read the correspondence must, I am 
sure, acknowledge that on my part it was at least charac- 
terized by manly frankness, and the absence of design to 
" entrap " any one. Of that, however, others must judge. 

(5.) Those who listened to his denunciations of " hireling 
writers," on the next Sabbath after the appearance of the 
pamphlet, and heard him declare (with a vehemence and agi- 
tation of manner peculiarly his own, and in singular contrast 
with the usual indications of peace of mind,) that he enjoyed 
a " REST " which could not be disturbed by " reptdes " and 
" household vermin," will be likely to suspect, that if he had 
not read it himself, he had at least heard it read by some 
one else. 

(6.) Immediately on receiving a copy of this letter, I ad- 
dressed to the ostensible author the following note : — 

New-York, July 31, 1841. 
Robert Hicks : 

I have in my possopsion a copy of a letter written by you, and 
addressed to Samuel Griffith, of Jefferson county, Ohio, under 
d?te of " 3d mo. 26th, 1841 ;" in which, alludmg to the published 
correspondence between George F. White and myself, you say : 

9 " In reading the two last letters, I became suspicious that there was some- 
thing wrnngr, and requested George to let me have the originals of Oliver John- 
son's letters, together vvith (he copies of his own in reply. On examining 
and comparing them with the pamphlet, I find many alterations, omissions, 
and addition." 

As your letter has been circulated privately, to a considerable 
extent, and is calculated to make an impression, where its state- 
ments are beUcved, that I have printed George F. White's let- 



96 

ters, as well as my own, incorrectly, I am desirous of j)]acinfr tho 
ratittei: in its true light before all whom it concerns. For this 
reason, I request you to opecif)/,pnrticulfirl>/, all the "alterations, 
omissions, and additions," to which you allude. If you will jrive 
me such a specification, I hereby pledg-e myself to publish it as 
extensively as I did the correspondence, and to furnish j-ou, gra- 
tuitously, with 100 copies, if you desire them. 

I wish also make to you the following proposition, which, if it 
suits 3-ou better than to comply with the foregomg request, you 
can accept. If you will call at the Anti Slavery Office, 143 
Nassau-street, with any friend, or number of friends, whom vou 
maj' choose to have with you, and bring the originals of my let- 
ters to George F. White, I will produce the originals of his to mc ; 
and the whole may be freely examined in the presence of both 
your friends and mine. Any " alterations, omissions, and addi- 
tions," which may be discovered on such an examination, I will 
publish as before stated, and furnish you with lOO copies of the 
same, if you desire them. If you prefer some other place to the 
Anti- Slavery office, I will meet you with one or two friends at 
any place in the city, and at alniost an}- time which you may 
choose. 

I deem it proper, in conclusion, to apprise you, that I shall feel 
at liberty to publish your letter to Samuel Griffith, with such 
comments as it appears to me to require. 
Respectfully, 

Your friend, 

Oliver Johnson'. 

Could I have made a fairer proposition, or furnished more 
Conclusive evidence that the charge against me was unfound- 
ed ? But did the author accept the proposition, and embrace 
the opportunity thus afforded to establish, if possible, by the 
only ftiir means, an accusation, which, if true, must ne- 
cessarily destroy the confidence of the public in my honesty ? 
Or did he retract the charge ? He did neither. Like the 
man in the gospel, conscious that he had not the garment of 
truth for a covering, " he teas speechless .'" 

Here I might dismiss this calumny as unworthy of further 
notice ; but, in order to put it for ever to rest, and to satisfy 
even suspicion itself, I offer the following 
CERTIFICATE. 

The imdersigned, members of the Society of Friends, as an 
act of simple justice, hereby certify, that Oliver Johnson has this 



96 

day placed in our hauds certain manuscript letters, which we 
have satisfactory reasons for believing, and which, we do not 
doubt, are the original letters of George F. White, published in a 
pamphlet, entitled, " Correspondence between Oliver Johnson 
and George F. White, a minister of the Society of Friends ;" 
and that, on a careful and rigid comparison, we find the same 
printed in the said pamphlet with scrupulous accuracy and fideli- 
ty, without " omissions, additions, or alterations," except in the 
following trifliiig and unimportant particulars, viz. : 

1. In the pamphlet, p. 15, (line 13 from bottom,) the word 
" have" is erroneously printed for had ; so as to read, " I have 
long looked upon," &.c. instead of, " I had long looked upon," &c. 

2. The phrase, " thy informant," on p. 16 of the pamphlet, 
line 18 from bottom, reads in the original, " thy thy informant." 

3. In three instances, in the last letter of G. F. W., in order 
to correct a mistake, (which is fully explained by a note in the 
pamphlet itself,) the word "implements" is substituted for its 
synonym, *' materials." 

4. The name of the person, who gave the information which 
led to the correspondence, is written in the original, but omitted 
in the pamphlet for the reason stated in a note on p. 10. 

5. In four or five instances, Oliver Johnson has corrected the 
orthography of G. F. W. 

6. In several cases, Oliver Johnson has made proper Correc- 
tions in punctuation, and in the use of capital letters. 

Not one of these mistakes, or corrections, affects, in the least 
degree, the meaning of the writer, as expressed in the original 
letters. 

We have been induced to give this certificate, not only as an 
act of justice to Oliver Johnson, but from a belief that those who 
have honestly imbibed impressions unfavourable to him, will be 
glad to have them corrected. 

John Ketcham, 
Henry Willis, 
Joseph Post, 
Mary W. Post. 
Jericho, L. I., 8th mo. 9, 1841. 

The signers of this certificate are members of the Monthly 
Meetings of Jericho and Westbury, and all well known to 
Robert Hicks, as persons whose character for veracity is 
unimpeachable. I might have obtained the signatures of a 
score of Friends, of equally high standing, if I had deemed 
it necessary. 

It has been suggested, that my accuser may attempt to 



97 

substantiate his cliarge, by declaring, that the insertion of a 
comma or a semicolon, where it was manifestly required by 
the common rules of punctuation, is an " addition ;" that 
leaviiig out either of these marks, for a similar reason, is an 

" omission ;" and that the substitution of a for the name 

of the informant, and a correction of false orthography, are 
" alteiu-tions," &c. &c. A resort to such a subterfuge, how- 
ever, would be tantamount to a confession of gross hypocrisy 
and an intention to deceive ; for what reader of his letter 
would suppose that he alluded in his charge to the common 
corrections of punctuation and orthography, which the printer 
is expected to make in nearly every manuscript that is put 
into his hands ? The letters of George F. White were treat- 
ed by me as I would treat those of a personal friend. They 
were as well prepared for the jn^ess as manuscripts generally 
are ; and if I had refused to make the corrections which are 
demanded in ninety- nine cases out of every hundred, of a 
similar character, I should have been charged with an in- 
vidious eftbrt to make him appear illiterate. If any one 
should still suspect that I have done him injustice, or doubt 
the fidelity of the examination made by the signers of the 
certificate, the letters are open to inspection. 

It may be asked, whether the " omissions, additions, and 
alterations," do not pertain chiefly to my own letters 1 Re- 
specting this, I only need say, that, with the exception of a 
single word, I am confident the printed letters will be found 
to correspond exactly with the originals, as they do with the 
copies which I retained. The word to which I allude is, 
" unworthy," which, if I had followed the original, I should 
have inserted before " member," on p. 6, line 20 from top. 
I omitted it, that I might not appear to proclaim my own 
humility. 

I waive all comments upon the motives of my accuser, as 
well as upon the insidious nature of the charge itself. It is 
enough for me that I have shown the latter to be groundless. 
9 



98 

(7.) There is another rule, given by one " greater than 
Solomon," by which the conduct of both G. F. W. and my- 
self must be tested — " Whatsoever ye would that men should 
do unto you, do ye even so unto them." 

(8.) In answer to this general charge, I can only say, that 
it is untrue. So far as the WTiter has ventu ed to specify 
what he is pleased to term " misrepresentations and false- 
hood," my reply will be found in subsequent notes. 

(9.) This statement may deceive those who live at a dis- 
tance, but it will have no other effect here, than to impair 
confidence in him who makes it. It is perfectly notorious, 
and, so far as I know, has never before been denied, either 
by friend or foe, that on the occasion referred to, George F. 
"White attributed the " blasphemy " to " abolitionists," with- 
out qualification, and without allusion to anj'^ Society, or re- 
solution of a Society. It was in this light that I replied to 
the charge, denying its truth ; and remarking, at the same 
time, " that it was not unlikely, that out of 1500 or 2000 
Anti-Slavery Societies, scattered in every part of the free 
States, one or more might Iiave used unguarded language on 
this point " G. F. W. did not pretend that I had misunder- 
stood or misconstrued his remaiks, but immediately reiterated 
the charge ; and in the interview, at his own house, with 
James S. Gibbons, he contended that the resolution of the 
Philadelphia Society fairly implicated the whole body of 
abolitionists. So far from complaining that I had misunder- 
stood him, in supposing that he referred to abolitionists ge- 
nerally, he even ridiculed the argument by which J. S. G. 
endeavoured to convince him that the Philadelphia Society 
was alone responsible for its resolutions. On this point I 
confidently appeal to hundreds, in Philadelphia and else- 
where, who have often heard him make the same charge in 
the most unqualified terms. Indeed, he rarely, if ever, uses 
qualifying terms, but almost invariably speaks in the superla- 
tive degree. Of course, if he had only said that an Anti- 



99 

Slavenj Society had adopted a '• blasphemous" resolution, I 
should have been relieved from the unpleasant duty of a pub- 
lic reply. A private request to be furnished with the nams 
of the Society would, in that case, have been sufficient. 

(10.) In this the writer is probably correct. George F. 
White rarely, if ever, uses so mild a term as " sinner." 
" Hypocrites," " vile hypocrites," " hypocritical hirelings," 
" hypocritical workers of popular* righteousness," " emissa- 
ries of Satan," " servants of the Devil," " wolves," " reptiles," 
" household vermin," — -these, and such as these, are the epi- 
thets he is wont to apply to members of his own religious 
society, and to others equally worthy of esteem and confi- 
dence. And yet, he calls no man a sinner ! As if it were 
possible for men to be " hypocrites," and not at the same 
time "sinners!" As if "hypocrisy" were not the most 
aggravated of all sins ! 

(11.) I did not use this expression ; but simply said, that I 
rose "from a sense of duty." 

(12.) The object of denying that the general invitation to 
" any body" included me, is to furnish an apology for the 
treatment which I received at the house of G. F. W. The 
distinction may pass for what it is worth ; but suppose I was 
not invited ; is that a justification for turning me out of doors 1 
Is that such treatment as the gospel would sanction, even 
when awarded to an enemy ■? " If ye salute [extend the rites 
of hospitality to] your brethren only, what do ye more than 
others ? Do not even the publicans the same ?" Let those 
who think I acted improperly in going to the house of G. F. 
White, for the purpose of asking him, in a respectful manner> 
to let me see the " vouchers" which he said he was willing. 



* " Popular !" This is certainly a very singular adjective to be used 
in such a connection. Would it not be more consistent with truth to 
say, that those who thus denounce abolitionists are "workers of popu- 
lar wirighteousness ?" Many offences have been charged to the aboli- 
tionists, but G. F. White is the only one, I believe, who has accused 
{hem of being engaged in a. popular work. 



100 

to show to " any body," and who are ready to excuse or 

palliate his conduct in ordering me out of the house, read the 

following, from Besse's Sufferings of the Quakers, vol. i., p. 

5S3 : 

"About this time (1658/ it happened, that Elizabeth Tucker, 
a zealous woman of liminster, went to the house of James Strong, 
Priest of that place, and exhorted him, in the name of the Lord, 
to give over deceiving the people, where he was set up and owned 
as a minister, and no longer to make a piey upon the innocent by 
his covetous practices. The priest, uttgry at rcjn-oof, thrust her 
out, and shut the door after her, before she had fully expressed 
her mind." 

True, the priest above mentioned used physical force to 
eject the woman from the house ; and in this respect his 
conduct was different from that of George F. White. But, 
then, it must he considered, on the other hand, that the priest 
did not profess to be a Quaker, and that the woman visited 
him not by invitation, nor in defence of her own character ; 
■while her language was peculiarly calculated to provoke him. 

(13.) Did not the asking such questions betray a con- 
sciousness of having acted improperly 1 Is it natural for a 
man, when feelings of kindness are uppermost in his heart, 
and the " voice within" conveys no reproof, to inquire what 
others think of his conduct ? 

(14.) This is incorrect. No such request was made 
during the conversation with J. S. G. 

(15.) During this time, James stood with his hat in his 
hand, ready to depart. He regarded himself as excluded 
from an honorable reception by the treatment awarded to me. 
Under such circumstances, can I be blamed for not with- 
drawing alone 1 

(16.) I hardly know how to express, without seeming 
harshness, the disgust I feel, and which I am sure must be 
excited in every enlightened mind, by this effort to charac- 
terize as blasphemous the resolutions of the Philadelphia 
Junior Society, which, understood according to their obvious 
intent and meaning, are perfectly consistent with the highest 



101 

sense of dependence upon God. Think of a minister of tho 
Society of Friends, at this period of the Christian era, in a 
country where one-sixth of the people are slaves, whose 
sighs and groans are home to his ears on every breeze, turn- 
ing coldly away from the tale of their agonizing sorrows, 
justifying his cold-hearted indifference to their wrongs, by 
the impious declaration that God can send them relief in his 
own good time ! and then fastening an evil eye upon the 
benevolent action of others, and torturing their very " mercy 
into crime /" Shade of Fox, and Penn, and Woolman, and 
Hicks ! Was such your testimony against oppression ? Did 
ye suffer the giant iniquities of your generation to go unre- 
buked, and turn a deaf ear to the cries of suffering humanity, 
that ye might hurl your denunciations at those whose names 
were " cast out as evil" for their fidelity to God and truth 1 
Did ye listen to the generous outpourings of sympathy for 
the down-trodden, from hearts consecrated, in the face of re- 
proach and persecution, to the work of their deliverance, as 
the Scribes and Piiarisees listened to Jesus, that ye might 
find whereof to accuse them ? Was such your spirit — such 
the example which constitutes the inheritance of those who, 
while they garnish your sepulchres, defame and persecute 
the messengers whom God has raised up to proclaim to this 
generation the truths which fell with such burning eloquence 
and power from your lips ? 

(17.) This is not true. There was nothing of arrangement, 
preparation, or concert M'ith others, in relation to the 
matter. Not until his denunciations reached a point at which 
it seemed strange that the very stones did not cry out, nor 
until I felt that I could not innocently refrain, did I open my 
mouth ; and then I said as little as would satisfy my con- 
science, and much less than might have been deemed justifi- 
able on the jjrinciple of self-defence. 

(IS.) This is untrue ; but I will leave Isaac T. Hopper to 
speak for himself. - 

9* • / 



102 

(19.) This is also untrue. Only one member of his family- 
was present, and he affirms that he did not even know that I 
was going to be there — much less that I would speak. 

(20.) The only member of Isaac T. Hopper's family 
present on that occasion was in the frequent habit of attend- 
ing that meeting. James S. Gibbons and his wife were also 
there, but without my knowledge. They, too, frequently 
attended the Rose-street meeting, as they do still. 

(21.) That is to say, he was guilty of lending me, at my 
own request, the Journal of George Fox ! A grave offi^nce, 
certainly, and worthy of being whispered through Ohio and 
Western New-York, as a proof that he was at the bottom of 
the whole affair, and was only using me as his " tool ! " 

(22.) As I was a stranger to Samuel Griffith, I. T. H., 
at my request, added to my letter of inquiry a note, designed 
to introduce me to him. Was there any thing wrong in 
this? 

(23.) This story, so confidently related, for the purpose 
of branding me with insincerity and hypocrisy, is marked by 
the grossest misrepresentation. The aged Friend alluded to 
is WiLLETT Hicks, an approved minister of the Society, 
who, when his health allows him to be present, sits at the 
head of the preachers' gallery in the Rose-street meeting. 
Nothing could be more unjust than the statement that his 
communications, at the time alluded to, were calculated to 
produce disorder. To me, they seemed to partake, in a high 
degree, of that tenderness of spirit, and that childlike trust 
in God, which can alone be felt and exhibited by a man of 
deep religious experience. If there was a quaintness in some 
of his expressions, calculated to produce a smile, there was 
much more to move the soul to tears. I confess I was highly 
delighted with his spirit, and solemnly impressed by what he 
said. He evidently spoke from the depths of his own expe- 
rience ; and there was in his communications a fervent cha- 
rity, and a warmth of benevolence, which charmed me the 



103 

more because thev were in such delightful contrast with the 
sweeping- denunciations and scornful invective, which had 
characterized most of the preaching to wliich I had listened 
in that place. George F. White was absent ; and many who 
had been drawn there by a desire to hear abolitionists abused 
and vilified, were doubtless disappointed, and not a little 
chagrined, to hear a good old man declare that he loved 
every body, " blacks as well as whites," and that no man 
who was a Christian could either slander his neighbour or 
hold human beings in bondage. Preaching like this did not 
suit the admirers of G. F. White ! It was too much like 
that of the prophet Nathan, and came home too closely to 
their own consciences. The assertion that I was " observed 
to exhibit lightness of behaviour," is no more true, than that 
"the discourse was calculated to lead to such a result." I 
was pleased, and my countenance may have exhibited the 
pleasure I felt. Friends, I know, on such occasions, are 
more strict than others ; and if I suffered the emotions of the 
mind to be more visibly expressed by the counlenancej than 
is usual with them, my apology is, that I have not been edu- 
cated in their Society, but in one which regards it as no 
breach of decorum when individuals are seen even to smile 
at the expression of a sentiment that is peculiarly quaint or 
pleasing. I am confident, that on the occasion alluded to, I 
did not do this ; but whether I did or not, it is the height of 
injustice to represent me- as having spoken insincerely in 
what I said at the time I was introduced to Willett Hicks. I 
told him, what I deeply felt, that I had been edified by what 
had fallen from his lips, and that I rejoiced to see him, on 
the verge of life, enjoying in so high a degree the consola- 
tions of religion. It is recollected by members of the family 
with whom I lived, that on returning from the meeting, I 
expressed, with much enthusiasm of manner, the same feel- 
jngs which I communicated to him. 

(24.) This is mere dust-throwing. Every one who has 



104 

read the early history of Friends, must be aware, that they 
did not go to the " steeple-houses " because the law required 
them to do so, nor merely to support their own legal and re- 
ligious rights ; but in obedience, as they believed, to the 
Spirit of God, to rebuke the priests and the people for their 
sins, and to bear testimony in favour of pure Christianity. 
Besides, their visits were not confined to the " steeple- 
houses " of the Established Church. For example : 

" Thomas Bond, being at an Tnde-pendent meeiiwg in Great 
Yarmouth, (1G55,) after their preacher had done, found a 
necessity upon him of speaking to the assembly, which he 
began to do, when one of their Elders, or Deacons, inter- 
rupted him, by thrusting him down over a high seat," &c. 
" He was taken and sent to prison, where he lay among 
felons." — Besse''s Sufferings of the Quakers, vol. i. p. 487. 

In the same work, (vol. i. p. 190,) it is stated that James 
Parnel, in 1655, when only 18 years of age, " went to Cog- 
geshall, where the Independent professors had appointed a 
fast.'' He " stood still till the priest had done," when he 
entered into a discussion with him. " On his coming out of 
the steeple-house, he was apprehended, and after examina- 
tion, committed to Colchester castle," on a charge of having 
entered the church " in a riotous manner," &c. He was 
afterwards tried, found guilty, " fined jC40, and sent again to 
prison till payment." 

Of course there was no law compelling Friends to go to 
the meetings of the Independents. 

(25.) I have before me the Journal of Richard Davies, a 
work well known among Friends. On p. 37, after stating 
that he went to the " steeple-house," in Welch Pool, in 1657, 
where he addressed the assembly, he says : 

" But I spoke but a little while, ere I was taken away to 

prison, with the young man before mentioned We 

were committed to prison on that LAW", tnade in Oliver''s 
days, that none were to speak to the priest or preachers, 
neither at their worship, nor coming and going." 



105 

As the following cases of imprisonment, for speaking in 
the " steeple-houses,''^ occurred during Cromwell's reign, 
there is little doubt that they were for violations of the law 
above referred to. 

" In this and the foregoing year, (1G54-5,) Joseph Cole, 
Dorothy Wangh, George Adamson, Hannah Mills, Thomas 
Curtis, and Anne, his wife, weie imprisoned at several times 
for offering to speak, by way of Christian exhortation, to the 
priest and people, when assembled in their place for public 
worship at Reading." — Basse's SuJ'erwgs of the Quakers, 
vol. i. p. 11. 

" About this time, (1650,) several persons were committed 
to Newgate, in Bristol, for bearing testimony to the truth in 
the place of public worship there, viz : — Thomas Kobinson, 
Josiah Cole, John Smith, John Waring, Henry Waring, Mar- 
garet Thomas, Elizabeth Marshall, Temperance Hignell, 
George Harrison, Christopher Birkhead, Benjamin Maynard, 
John Ware, and John Bezer." — lb. vol. i. pp. 41 — 2. 

" Mary Fisher, James Lancaster, and John Cunningham, 
for giving Christian exhortations to the priests and people, 
when assembled in the places for public worship, were com- 
mitted to prison," (in 1H55.) — lb. p. 75. 

" George Fox, for preaching the truth in the great worship- 
house at Carlisle, (1653,) after the priest had ended his 
sermon, and for witnessing a good confession before the 
magistrates and people there, was imprisoned seven weeks, 
sometimes among thieves and murderers." " Peter Head, 
for testifying to the truth in the steeple-liouse at Deane, was 
imprisoned fourteen weeks." — lb. p. 127. 

I might quote scores of similar cases, but the above will 
be deemed sufficient. 

(20.) This is a very reinarkable statement, and shows 
either great ignorance, or a disposition to deceive. It appears 
by Gough's history, that meetings of Friends " begun to be 
settled" as early as 164S ; in 1050, they were called Qua- 
kers ; and in 1652, the historian informs us that " THE SO- 
CIETY increased under their sufferings," and that every ob- 
stacle " proved ineffectual to check the progress of this SO- 
CIETY." Of course the Society could not have made 



106 

" progress" before its existence ; and hence we may conclude 
that Friends " became a Society" at least as early as 1652. 
Now all the cases of imprisonment for speaking in the church, 
quoted in the preceding note, occurred after this date ; and 
there are hundreds of a similar character on record. 

" 1657. William Callow was detained eight weeks in pri- 
son, for pul)lioly reproving a priest whom he heard abusing 
the Quakers* in his sermon to the people." — Besse's Suffer- 
ings, vol. i. p. 209. 

On p. 303, of the same volume, I find no less than '28 cases ! 
But let me give a few instances from the history of Friends 
in our own country : 

1657. " Christopher Holder and John Copeland, being at 
Salem, went to the place of public worship there, and after the 
priest had ended his service, Holder spake afew words, but was 
presently pulled backward by the hair of his head, and had a 
glove and handkerchief thrust into his mouth, and so was 
turned out, and with his companion carried to Boston next 
day, where each of them received thirty stripes with a knot- 
ted whip of three cords, the executioner measuring his ground, 
and fetching his strokes with all his strength, which so cruel- 
ly cut their flesh, that a woman at the sight of it fell down aa 
dead." — Besse''s Sufferings, vol. ii. p. 183. 

]b57. " Sarah Gibbons and Dorothy Waugh, being come 
to Boston, after a public lecture there, sj)ake a few words to 
the people, for which they were sent to the House of Cor- 
rection, where, after being kept three days without any food, 
they were cruelly whipj)ed." — 16. p. 184. 

1658. " About this time Thomas Harris, from Rhode 
Island, came to Boston, and in the public meeting-place there, 
after the priest had done, warned the people of the dreadful, 
terrible day of the Lord, which was coming upon that town 
and country. He was presently haled by the hair of his 
head, and sent to prison. Next day he was cruelly whipped." 
— Id. p. 185. 

Here are several instances, which occurred at a period 

• Could he have abused them worse than G. F. White abused 
the atiolitionists, or given a more just cause for reproof? He must 
have l)eBn unoo.iimonly skilled in the art of vituperation, if he could. 



107 

when no one will doubt that the Friends had " becoime a So- 
ciety." ' ■ . 

10fi3. " Thomas Newhousc was whipped through the ju- 
risdiction of Boston, for testifying' against the persecutors in 
their niceting-house there ; at which time he, in a prophetic 
manner, having two glass bottles in his hands, threw them 
down, saying, ' So shall you be dashed in pieces.' " — Besse^s 
Sufferings, vol. ii. p. 232. 

1G()5. " Thomas Newhouse, being in Boston on a lecture- 
day, went into the worship-house, and stood silent till the 
preacher had done, and then would have spoken, by way of 
exhortation to the people, but was inuuediately haled away to 
prison, and the next day whipped in the market-place with 
ten stripes, and then out of town with ten more, which pun- 
ishment he again underwent at Uoxbury and at Dedliam." — 
Il>. p. 237. 

liJ77. " Margaret Brewster had a foresight given her of 
that grievous calamity called the black-i)ox, which afterward 
spread there, to the cutting off many of the people. Where- 
fore she was constrained, in a prophetic manner, to warn 
them thereof, by entering into their public assendjly, clothed 
in sackcloth and ashes, and with her face made black." — Jb. 
p. 2GU. 

The question may well be put to the author of the letter, 
" Are thou an" Overseer "in Israel, and knowest not these 
things ?" 

(27.) True, T had "no right" in the Society, but I had 
right in the meeting, in common with every one who chose to 
attend. If it be said that I had no right to speak, in vindica- 
tion of myself and others, when we were grossly abused and 
slandered by the minister, then I ask what right had early 
Friends to defend themselves, when they were assailed in 
sermons by the priests 1 What right had James Parnel, for 
instance, to " vindicate himself and brethren against the op- 
probrious misrepresentations" of the minister of the Independ' 
ent Church in Coggeshall ? [See Gough's History, vol. i. p. 
183.] 

(28.) I have furnished evidence, in the preceding notes, 



108 

that so far from slandering the Society, I only stated a fact, 
•which no one acquainted with its history can deny. 

(29.) Was it an "outrage" to deny that abolitionists were 
guilty of " blasphemy," and to challenge an examination of 
their official documents in proof of innocence \ The sensi- 
tiveness of some persons in their relation to what I said 
on that occasion, reminds me of the man who gave as a 
reason for being angry when another called him a liar, that 
" the rascal proved it !" If there is not a conviction that what 
I said on that occasion was true, why this effort to excite 
dium against me for having spoken ? The fact of speaking 
is of itself of little consequence, and would have been passed 
by as the idle wind, if I had not uttered unwelcome truth. 

(30.) The paper in question contained nothing which, by 
any possible construction, can be regarded as an attack upon 
the Society of Friends. The conduct of G. F. White, and 
of the " governing influences of the Rose-street meeting," is 
indeed spoken of with great plainness ; but they are not the 
Society of Friends ; nor do I beli«ve that the Society will 
sustain them in their course. 

(31.) This is a mistake. There were tivo members of the 
committee, residing in the city, who were not Friends. 

(32.) " No public notice." The answers were to be pri- 
vate, so as to deprive me, if possible, of the' power of reply. 
I leave it for others to judge, in view of the facts, why dark- 
ness was thus preferred to light. 

(33.) The use which has actually been made of the letter 
shows how much was intended by the liberty here given. It 
was to be handed about to individuals, and read in private 
circles — and not published. 

I have thus replied to a;ll those parts 6f the letter of Robert 
Hicks, which appeared to me to demand notice. It was with 
reluctance that I entered upon the task ; and the readers of 
the Standard will not regret more sincerely than I do, that 



109 

the letter and reply occupy so much room. The latter I have 

endeavored to make as brief as was consistent with its object. 

Isaac T. Hopper has made a brief answer to those parts of 

the letter which relate particularly to himself, which I annex. 

" Without concealment, 

Without compromise," 

Yours, &c. 
OLIVER JOHNSON. - 

STATEMENT OF ISAAC T. HOPPER. 

After what Oliver Johnson has written, there seems but 
little left requiring my attention ; as I think every one, who 
carefully examines the subject, will see, that the bold and 
positive assertions of the writer of the letter he has reviewed, 
are entitled to no credit ; and yet there are a few points in it, 
that appear proper for me to notice. 

The writer of the letter says, that " Oliver Johnson is os- 
tensibly the sole author of the pamphlet ; but it is not doubt- 
ed by Friends here, that he is a tool of these parties, employ- 
ed by them to do that which they, as members of Society, 
dare not do themselves." The plain English of this, accord- 
ing to my understanding, is, that Friends here believe that 
myself, with some other members of the Society, are the real 
authors of the pamphlet entitled, '' Correspondence between 
Oliver Johnson and George F. White," &c. That great 
efforts have been used by some individuals in this city to make 
such an impression, is unquestionable ; verifying the truth of 
the Scripture declaration, " An evil man, out of the evil 
treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil things." 

The publication of Oliver Johnson's pamphlet produced an 
agitation and angry feeling, wholly incompatible with that sta- 
bility and settlement of mind which is the invariable attendant 
of those who have experienced, in any considerable degree, a 
settlement upon that foundation, against which the rains and 
the floods beat in vain; and as he is not a member of the So- 
10 



110 

ciety of Friends, some individuals appear to have sought for 
other objects on whom to pour out their vengeance. 

The writer of the letter asserts, that Oliver Johnson says, 
I " furnished him with the cases he has cited, to prove that 
early Friends unlawfully disturbed the meetings of other de- 
nominations," and that I " endorsed his character as a re- 
spectable, worthy man." Here is the evidence upon which 
Friends found their belief, if ihey really do believe, that I 
and some other Friends, are the real authors of the pamphlet. 
Rather flimsy grounds upon which to accuse us of falsehood. 

To the former of these charges I will just say, that, at his 
request, I lent him George Fox's Journal, which abounds 
with such instances. To the latter I would reply, — T did so, 
and feci no regret for having done it ; and with all the dis- 
position which the writer of the letter under notice manifests 
to render him odious, he has entirely failed to fasten a stain 
upon his reputation, or to show that he is unworthy of the 
character I have given of him. This is all I had to do in 
getting up the pamphlet, though at the time I had no idea that 
a pamphlet was to be made. 

There is another part of Robert Hicks' letter that is still 
more extraordinary than those above quoted, where he says, 
" The attack made by Oliver Johnson upon George F. White 
was a premeditated one, Isaac T, Hopper was cognizant oj 
this fact; and on the morning when it was made, several 
members of his family were at the meeting, (not the one to 
which they belong, and which they usually attend,) appa- 
rently with the view of witnessing the outrage." Here is a 
positive assertion without even a shadow of evidence to sus- 
tain it. It is not true. But one member of my family was 
present at that time, and he was in the frequent practice of 
attending ; but he did not even know that Oliver Johnson ex- 
pected to be there on that day. James S. Gibbons and his 
wife were there, it is true ; but they are not members of my 
family, and they both declare, that [they had no knowledge 



Ill 

ol" Oliver Johnson's intentions of being at Rose-street at 
that lime. They were both in the habit of frequently attend- 
ing that meeting. 

In speaking of James S. Gibbons, Charles iMarriott, and 
myself, the writer of the letter says : ''These persons, after 
having made efforts to introduce their agents and lecturers 
among Friends in this vicinity, and having utterly failed, 
have now commenced an attack upon us." Here is another 
charge as groundless as the preceding. We never did make 
any efforts to introduce " agents and lecturers " among 
Friends in this vicinity, or any where else. Oliver Johnson 
delivered two lectures in Friends' meeting-house at I\IarI- 
borough, Ulster co., in this State, by the invitation of some 
Friends there ; and he also lectured twice on Long Island, 
at the request of some members of the Society of Friends 
in the neighbourhood where they were delivered. But he 
was not sent by us, neither did he, or any other person, ever 
deliver a lecture " among Friends " at our request ; neither 
is it true that we have ever " commenced an attack upon 
Friends." 

I have never wished to conceal the fact, that I receive a 
salary of six hundred dollars per annum for my services. 
At the annual meeting in the 5th mo. 1840, I was appointed 
Treasurer of the American Anti- Slavery Society- I was 
also solicited to take charge of the sale of the books in the 
office, and attend to such other matters as might require at- 
tention connected with the establishment. I consented to do 
60. These objects occupy my whole time, and I feel per- 
fectly at liberty to receive a compensation for it. I have 
devoted a large portion of my time for many years, and have 
spent much money, without any other reward than that aris- 
ing from having been instrumental in relieving many of my 
coloured brethren from cruel oppression. The Society of 
Friends have always, since I have known them, been in the 
practice of paying for transacting their secular concerns, 



H2 

precisely the same in nature with those in which I am en- 
gaged ; but I have never heard it charged as a crime. 

I will now leave Robert Hicks to settle this matter with 
his own conscience and with his friends, whom he has so 
grossly abused by misrepresentation, not to say downright 
untruth. I have spoken plainly — the circumstances of the 
case require it — and I regret the occasion which has made 
it imperative that I should do so ; but I have no hostility to- 
wards the individual with whom I have dealt so plainly. 

ISAA.C T. HOPPER. 



B 

[See page 18.] 

RARE SPECIMEN OF A QUAKER PREACHER !* 

*'Tho prophets prophesy LIES in my name ; I sent them not, neither 
have I commanded them, neither -spake unto them: they prophesy unto 
you a FALSE vision and divination, and a tlung of nought, and the deceit 
of their heart." — Jer. liv. 14. 

" Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame." — Jude 14. 

We have placed these graphic and terrible quotations from 
the Inspired Volume at the head of this article, not in a mo- 
ment of excitement, to gratify a censorious or retaliatory 
disposition, but because, after calm and mature deliberation, 
we believe them to be strictly and fearfully applicable to the 

* NOTE TO THE .\BOVE. 

It is with much regret that I place this article before the reader. It 
is necessary, however, that it should be done, in order to complete 
the narrative of the proceedings in my case ; and to withhold it, would 
be doing injustice to my adversaries, as it is the alleged cause of ac- 
tion against me. It is mournful that such a state of things as it re- 
veals, should ever have existed in the meeting alluded to. And, how- 
ever much we may regret the exposure of such impropriety, it must 
be borne in mind that the facts contained in the statement have not 
been controverted or disprored. 

The members of the Monthly Meeting could quietly listen to the viru- 



individual of whose conduct we are about to speak. The 
grounds of this opinion will be seen from the statements 
which follow. 

On the 8th of November last, the writer of this, having 
understood that Thomas M'Clintock, (an active abolitionist, 
and a highly esteemed minister of that division of the So- 
ciety of Friends not called Orthodox,) 'would be present, 
was induced to attend the Rose-street meeting of Friends in 
this city. On that occasion, Thomas M'Clintock spoke 
against slavery and other national sins with great plainness 
and fidelity, as a genuine Friend might be expected to do. 
His communication was received with evident marks of dis- 
satisfaction by many, and he was several times disturbed, 
when alluding to slavery, by the shuffling of feet I An oc- 

lent abuse which was so freely poured out upon an unoffending class 
of individuals, and instead of discountenancing the slander, and oliject- 
ing to such a prostitution of the sacred functions of the ministry, they 
seemed to evince every indication of entire approbation. But as soon 
as a revelation of such misconduct is made, as soon as the light of 
day shines upon their doings, agitation and alarm become apparent ; 
and a course of the most flagrant persecution ensues ; and every one 
who raises a voice against such unchristian attacks, is proscribed. 

I had no hand whatever in preparing the article, nor had I the au- 
thority to suppress it, and my attachment and regard for the credit of 
the Society of Friends, have frequently induced me to regret that 
such an exposure was ever made. But jt plainly shows the condition 
of a body that could sanction such proceedings. It is cause of sorrow 
that the state of any Monthly Meeting should be so weak and low ; 
and 1 greatly fear, froni present indications, that it is becoming weaker 
and weaker. It is, however, the natural and inevitable result of such 
conduct as has been too long pursued by those whose general course 
of life, pursuits, habits, thoughts, and interests, but little qualify them 
to take [lart in concerns of a religious and disciplinary' character. 
Had there not existed in the Monthly Meeting of New- Fork, this in- 
herent weakness- — had it been composed of the elements essentially 
necessary to constitute a sound, enlightened, judicious, and dignified 
body of Friends, I assert with confidence, that the cause of the difTi- 
culty narrated in these pages would never have existed, or would have 
been checked in its incipient budding; and the whole train of mourn- 
fully disorganizing consequences would have been averted, and tho 
Society at large saved from their inauspicious influence. This 
opinion, I believe, will be sustained by Friends generally. " Be not 
deceived ; God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth, that 
shall he also reap." 

I. T. H. 



114 

Currence so extraordinary, in a meeting of Friends, could 
hardly fail to excite attention, and lead to an inquiry for the 
cause which produced it. Having learned that GEORGE 
F. WHITE, a minister belonging to that meeting, was in 
the constant practice of denouncing abolitionists in the most 
offensive and opprobrious terms, we were at no loss to account 
for such disgraceful conduct ; and accordingly, in the Stand- 
ard of Nov. 12, after stating the fact of the disturbance, we 
made the follov/ing remarks : 

" Nor is such conduct much to be wondered at, when it is 
considered that the most prominent minister in the meeting 
is in the habit of denouncing, not only anti-slavery, but tem- 
perance societies, in the most reproachful terms, in his pub- 
lic communications. This rude pro-slavery demonstration 
•was made, however, by a small portion of the assembly, and 
•will meet the disapprobation of many who are not abolition- 
ists. If the young men who thus disgraced themselves had 
not been nursed in a pro-slavery atmosphere at home, and 
felt themselves sustained by the opposition to the anti-slavery 
enterprise, which generally prevails in the meeting, they 
■would not thus have presumed to disturb the ' quiet ' of their 
fellow- worshippers." 

These remarks, as might have been expected, created 
some excitement among the leading individuals in the Rose- 
street meeting, which was increased by their subsequent 
appearance in the Pennsylvania Freeman, accompanied by 
the following appropriate observations by the editor of that 
journal : 

" Shame on Them. — Our readers will be surprised to 
learn — as they will, by an article which we copy below from 
the National Anti-Slavery Standard, that an approved and 
highly estimable minister of the Society of Friends has been 
interrupted in the midst of a religious discourse in a regular 
meeting for worship at one of the Friends' meeting-houses 
in New-York city, by such tokens of dissatisfaction as ought 
to be regarded as disgraceful even to the political caucus ; — 
that conduct was witnessed in an assembly of this quiet and 
orderly denomination, which we venture to say would not 
have occurred, — and certainly would not have been tolerated 



115 

in a religious meeting of any other sect in the country. And 
why was this outrage upon the rights of the preacher, and 
the quiet of llie assembly to which he had come as a messen- 
ger of God's truth 1 For no other reason, it appears, than 
his noble faithfulness in maintaining, and honest plainness of 
speech in setting forth one of the greatest testimonies of the 
Society. 

Has it come to this ] Has this glorious testimony already, 
by reason of the growing tendency among the great body of 
its members to conform to the corrupt public sentiment and 
WTong customs of the world around, so far lost its excel- 
lency in the eyes of its professed upholders, that they can 
no longer abide its promulgation in its purity, simplicity and 
unabated fulness ? 

If Friend M'Ciintock had qualified his righteous condemna- 
tion of slavery with a liberal share of abuse and calumny 
and bitter denunciation lavished upon those of other sects, 
who concur with him in holding, and are fliithful in pro- 
claiming the same testimony, would he have been thus in- 
sulted, and his rights as a man and a minister of the Most 
High been so trampled on in that meeting ? 

We are far from believing that the minister alluded to by 
the Standard, as being 'in the habit of denouncing not only 
anti-slavery, but temperance societies,' would himself ap- 
prove the indecorous behaviour we have had occasion to 
comment on : — this most unquaker-like, unchristian, unmanly 
and indecent outrage upon propriety and the good order of a 
religious assembly." 

Whether George F. White deserved the charitable excul- 
pation, with which the editor of the Freeman closes his re- 
marks, will appear from the history of his subsequent con- 
duct. That he would openly justify the disturbance, we do 
not believe ; nor have we ever learned that he deemed it 
worthy of public censure. That we were right in speaking 
of it as the natural effect of his furious denunciations, no 
one who has attentively watched the progress of the anti- 
slavery cause, or who understands the workings of human 
nature, can for a moment doubt. The worst mobs which 
abolitionists have ever encountered, were excited by the 
misrepresentations and falsehoods of " hireling " editors and 



116 

preachers, who professed to be " as mucli opposed to slavery 
as any body," and who, when the responsibility of such out- 
breaks was laid to their charge, were wont to repel the im- 
putation with scorn, and to exclaim, in the indignant language 
of the messenger of the proud king of Assyria, when the 
Hebrew prophet told him of the crimes which he would 
commit on his accession to the throne of his master, " But 
what ? is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great 
thing?" It is certainly no wonder, that those who are not 
restrained by high moral and religious principle, and whose 
minds are filled with that vulgar prejudice against our colour- 
ed population which so extensively prevails, should be led, 
by such passionate and sweeping denunciations as those of 
G. F. White, to imbibe that kind of hostility to abolitionists, 
which would naturally find vent in rude and indecent beha- 
viour, Avhenever anti-slavery principles are advocated in their 
presence. Their spirit and conduct are but the counterpart 
of his. They deserve commisseration, on account of their 
ignorance, being deluded by those whom they have been 
taught to regard as models of Christian forbearance and 
charity ; while he, and his more intelligent supporters, are 
worthy of indignant rebuke, as in the sight of God the real 
authors of tlie disgraceful conduct in question. 

On the 15th of November, we went again to the Rose- 
street meeting. We will not conceal, that, in doing so, we 
were influenced, in some measure, by a painful curiosity, 
very natural to us as an abolitionist, to listen to the preach- 
ing of a man, the vituperative character of whose ministry 
had become so notorious. It v/anted a more vivid imagina- 
tion than ours, to conceive how a Quaker preacher would 
look at this period of the Christian era, and at this advanced 
stage of the anti-slavery enterprise, breathing out wholesale 
denunciations of abolitionists and their measures, in a style 
so coarse and vindictive as might well put the New-York 
Courier and Enquirer and the Washington Globe to tUa 



117 

blush ! Such a character was so incongruous with all our 
ideas of Quakerism, so inconsistant with all that we had 
ever seen of that moderate and imperturbable sect, that we 
listened with involuntary incredulity to the statements of 
others, and determined to see and hear for ourselves. 

On the occasi(m above alluded to, we witnessed the 
"anomalous" exhibition, a description of which had failed to 
make any well-defined impression upon our mind, so difficult 
was it to believe that the description was not greatly exag- 
gerated. It was the Sabbath next succeeding that on which 
Thomas M'Clintock had borne his solemn testimony against 
slavery. George F. White delivered a discourse, (if we may 
call it by that name,) which, for incoherency of argument, 
misrepresentation and caricature of the sentiments of others, 
abusiveness of style, and passionate ferocity of manner, ex- 
ceeded any thing which we had ever heard from a man pro- 
fessing to be a minister of the gospel. To say that we 
listened with painful surprise to such a discourse, in such a 
place, would be too faint an expression of our feelings. Our 
emotions were those of utter astonishment — nay, almost of 
horror ! We were reluctantly compelled to acknowledge, 
that the half had not been told us, and for a time we could 
hardly believe the testimony of our own eyes and ears. But 
for the outward peculiarities of a Quaker assembly, which 
we saw about us, we should have been ready to conclude 
that we had missed our way and gone to a political caucus, 
and that we were listening to the harangue of some unscru- 
pulous demagogue, who supposed that his only chance for 
preferment depended upon the facility with which he could 
blacken the reputation of his neighbors. The expressions, 
"hireling lecturers," "hireling editors," " hireling printers 
and book agents," " servants of the devil," " emissaries of 
satan," " hypocrites," " blasphemers," " hypocritical workers 
of popular righteousness," " coming up out of the bottomless 
pit," &c., were used with an indiscriminate frequency no less 



118 

shocking to a charitable mind than repugnant to a relined 
tasle. Of the manner of the speaker it is enough to say, 
that it corresponded with liis matter. The tones of his voice 
were harsh, and his countenance and gestures (parlicularly 
the former) were indicative of a high degree of morbid ex- 
citement and vindictive passion. It was apparent, notwith- 
standing his frequent asseverations tliat he was required by 
God to speak as he did, that his " inspiration" was mainly 
derived from his strong displeasure on account of the anti- 
slavery preaching of the previous Sabbath, and his anxiety 
to remove any favorable impressions it might have made upon 
the assembly. As an illustration of the manner in which he 
caricatured the sentiments of those who were the objects of 
his attacks, we may observe, that he accused the friends of 
the temperance reform of impugning the wisdom of God in 
their warfare against intoxicating liquors, alcohol being one 
of the " good things" intended for the benefit of man ! In- 
stead of candidly and truly stating their real position, viz : 
that the use of alcoholic stimulants as a beverage is contrary 
to the laws of health and animal life, and therefore sinful, he 
represented them as holding the absurd doctrine that sin was 
inherent in the alcohol itself! On this ground he charged 
them with " blasphemy," and with assuming to be wiser than 
God ! That he knowingly and wilfully misrepresented their 
sentiments, we will not take it upon us to say ; but, that such 
a statement, at this day, is the fruit of honest ignorance, 
seems almost too incredible to be believed. Nevertheless, 
we will be as charitable as possible. 

Soon after the time above mentioned, a highly respectable 
member of the Society of Friends informed us, that on a 
subsequent day, when we were not present, the same preacher 
had charged members of a society professing non-resistance 
principles with threatening to enter a meeting house by force. 
Being a member of the society to which he was understood 
to refer, we addressed hira a respectful note, askmg to be 



119 

informed on what anthority he had made this serious state- 
ment. Instead of frankly complying with our request, as he 
was bound in honor to do, and as he would have done if he 
had been sustained by a consciousness that his charge was 
well founded, he sought to evade the question, and to shield 
himself from responsibility by making false issues upon im- 
material points ; and when he could no longer withhold tha 
information we sought, without inflicting upon himself posi- 
tive disgrace, he accompanied it with a tirade of personal 
abuse and low sarcasm, such as it had never before been our 
lot to receive at the hands of any man professing to be 
governed by the principles of the gospel. 

On the 19th of November, while this correspondence was 
in progress, we went again to the Rose-street meeting. At 
this time, he not only repeated his ^lsual denunciations, but 
charged the w^iole body of abolitionists, without exception or 
qualification, with holding the doctrine, that the only hope of 
the slave loas not in God, nor in truth, hut in themselves. 
This doctrine he pronounced "FLAT BLASPHEMY.'' 
If he had contented himself with general denunciation, we 
should have been silent ; but here was a definite charge 
brought against abolitionists, in the presence of 800 people — 
a charge which we knew to be false, and which, if left un- 
contradicted, might do no small amount of mischief. As one 
who had been identified with the anti-slavery enterprise from 
its commencement, and especially as a member of the 
Executive Committee of the Amei'ican Anti-Slavery Society, 
we felt it to be our duty, in the most unequivocal and explicit 
terms, to deny its truth. This we did as briefly as justice 
to the accused would allow, and in a tone and manner with 
■which the warmest supporters of George F. White have 
liever ventured to find fault, although they were much dis- 
pleased with us for presuming to ward off a blow thus cruelly 
aimed at us and our associates. It was one of those acts of 
efelf-defence which haughty sect never can forgive. At the 



120 

conclusion of our remarks, we expressed the hope, that the 
members of a society whose early founders had often felt 
themselves called upon to address the religious assemblies of 
other sects, not only contrary to the rules of those sects, but 
even to the laws of the land, would not judge us harshly or 
uncharitably for venturing to speak under such extraordinary 
circumstances. 

After we sat down, George F. White arose and declared, 
that he had ample vouchers for all that he had said, which 
he would exhibit to any body who would call at his house or 
store. He also (strange infatuation !) charged me with 
falsehood for saying that primitive Friends had violated the 
laws of the land by speaking in the meetings of other sects ! 
This charge certainly displayed great ignorance of the early 
history of the Society, or an utter recklessness of truth. On 
the next evening, availing ourselves of the invitation thus 
publicly given, we went to his house, in company with James 
S. Gibbons, and asked for the privilege of looking at the 
vouchers for his charge. Will the reader believe us when 
we say, that he not only refused to exhibit them, but ordered 
us, in a haughty and imperious tone, to leave his house, and 
heaped upon us the grossest personal abuse ? Incredible as 
it may seem, such is the fact. To James S. Gibbons, how- 
ever, he showed his proof, which consisted of a resolution 
passed by the Junior Anti-Slavery Society of Philadelphia ! 
On a palpably strained and false interpretation of that resolu- 
tion, he persisted in charging the whole body of abolitionists 
with uttering "blasphemy." Certainly, this is not less un- 
just than it would be for us to make the whole body of Friends 
responsible for his uncharitable aspersions. Who would 
hesitate to say, if we were to avow a principle so absurd, that 
we were either strangely deluded, or knowingly guilty of 
bearing false witness ! 

The charge against non-resistants was no better substan- 
tiated than the other. After tracing it to its source, it was 



121 

found to be " a false vision and divination, a thing of nought, 
and the deceit of the heart." It was nothing, in fact, but a 
piece of gossip and scandal, which, falling in with his bitter 
prejudices, and feeding the fire of his implacable hoptility to 
a philamhropic association, he had tiie folly and pres'unption 
to deal out in a religious discourse, under the sanction of 
Divine inspiration ! Our conespondence with hira in relation 
to this charge is before the public, and to it we refer the 
reader for additional information. The same pamphlet also 
contains a refutation of the charge of blasphemy against the 
abolitionists, and ample proofs, from the Journal of George 
Fox, that our statement respecting primitive Friends was 
strictly and incontrovertibly true. It is certainly a matter of 
wonder, that a minister of the Society, (and one, too, of the 
pretensions of G. F. White !) should be either superficial or 
hardy enough to deny the truth of our remark on that subject. 
Let no one say, that we have attached undue importance 
to the accusations of such a man, or suppose for a moment 
that any motive of a personal nature has drawn us into a con- 
flict with him. By his standing in that division of the So- 
ciety of Friends to which he belongs, and by his reputation 
as a preacher, he has done much to poison the minds of 
others, and to keep the Society itself from taking the posi- 
tion in relation to our cause which its principles demand ; 
and hence, a thorough exposure of his conduct will exert a 
beneficial influence. Multitudes in the Society, who are 
extremely pained and mortified on account of his course, 
heartily rejoice that such an exposure has been made ; and 
the information which we have received from various quar- 
ters where the pamphlet has been read, leaves no room for 
doubt liiat it will do great good. A highly esteemed minis- 
ter of the Society writes to me as follows : — 

" I will just state, that I have lately read a correspondence 
between ihee and a member of our Society, and that my soul 
has been brought into near sympathy with thee on account 
11 



122 

thereof. The subject needs no comment of mine. The lan- 
guage and spirit of thy opponent are enougli to satisfy me, 
and I think tliey must satisfy every one who truly loves God 
and his creature man." 

Another minister of the Society, in a letter enclosing an 
order for 25 copies of the pamp Irlet, says — 

"In view of all the circumstances, I approve of the publi- 
cation of the correspondence, find I cannot see any thing in 
the part thou hast acted to which I can object ; but I am 
astonished and mortified at the course of G. F. White. 
Whether the Friends of Rose-street meeting can, hereafter, 
receive his ministry, I shall leave for them to determine. 
Upon reading his last letter, I said to those around me, that 
I had much rather have made the threat in question, [to 
break into a meeting-housej than to have put my name to a 
document of the style, and breathing the temper of that let- 
ter. It would give me great pleasure to know that he had 
discovered his error, and promptly condemned it. But let us 
forgive him, supposing he knew not what he did.'' 

I have seen a letter from another minister, of high stand- 
ing in the Society, expressing his disapprobation of G. F* 
W.'s conduct in still stronger terms. A friend in Philadel- 
phia writes : — 

*' George F. White's part of the correspondence, as far as 
my knowledge goes, finds no defenders, and few apologists. 
Those who are free from sectarianism in the Society think 
lum in a very unpleasant predicament, and I guess his warm- 
est friends could wish his letters had never come to light." 

An individual of great worth, who is extensively ac- 
quainted with Friends, writes thus : — 

" A person of my acquaintance, who at first jiearing of 
your difficulty with G. F. W., (I suspect partly at least from 
him,) thought you much in the wrong, called you in effect 
ungentlemanly and unmannerly, to say no worse, has since 
read your correspondence, and says George is a sad speci- 
men of a Quaker preacher, and that he has no kind of excuse 
for his shameful treatment of you, while you have given full 
evidence of your veracity, gentlemanly manners, and Chris- 
tian forbearance." 



123 

These are but specimens of numerous testimonies, of a 
similar character, which we have received from persons liv- 
ing out of the pro-slavery atmosphere of New-York ; and 
there are those even here who will rejoice to see them. 
George F. White and his supporters may read in them the 
verdict of the great body of the Society in relation to his 
course. 

Friends abroad will be interested to learn what effect the 
publication has had in the city, and whether G. F. W. still 
continues to denounce abolitionists and others as formerly. 
We are sorry to say, that he has " waxed worse and worse,'' 
having added to his former list of epithets those of " wolves," 
" reptiles," and " household vermin." His discourses abound 
even with gross personal allusions ! On Wednesday of last 
week we attended Rose-street meeting. In his sermon on 
that day, after stating the general principle that men are 
humbled and subdued by suffering, and referring to the judg- 
ments of God upon Pharaoh as a case in point, he gave an 
illustration, which we will repeat, as nearly as we can recol- 
lect, in his own words : — " Just as a slave, recently, wb.o 
had suflfered the effects of his criminal conduct, and been 
thus led to calm reflection, chose to go back into slavery with 
his master, and to endure all the evils of that condition, not- 
withstanding his former experience of them, rather than stay 
with those hypocritical workers of popular righteousness 
who had interfered in his behalf. For my own part I com- 
mend his choice. I had a thousand times rather be a slave, 
and spend ray days with slaveholders, than to dwell in com- 
panionship with abolitionists." 

This was an allusion, which every one present understood 
to the case of Thomas Hughes, formerly the slave of John 
P. Darg, whose history is given in our columns to-day, by 
Isaac T. Hopper, as No. XVI. of his " Tales of Oppres- 
sion." It was also understood and intended as a thrust at 
Isaac T. Hopper, who went to Sing Sing, to act the part of 



124 

the good Samaritan, by informing Tom that he was free, and 
offering him protection. That the pro-slavery press should 
speak of this act of disinterested benevolence in contemp- 
tuous and reproachful terms, and exult over the weakness of 
the unfortunate colored man in placing himself in the power 
of a gambling slaveholder, was no more than might have 
been expected ; but, that a Quaker preacher should seize 
upon such an occurrence, with an avidity which would not 
allow him to wait for a proper understanding of the facts, for 
the purpose of inflicting a wound upon a worthy and vene- 
rable member of his own religious society, (the latchet of 
whose shoes he is unworthy to unloose,) and to bring the 
anti- slavery cause into contempt, is a fact which may well 
excite both our astonishment and indignation, and lead us 
almost to conclude, that his own expression of his feelings is 
indeed too true, and that he is far better qualified to asso- 
ciate with slaveholders, than with the humane and conscien- 
tious portion of community. If a man may be known by 
the company he prefers, what shall we say of such a 
preacher ? 

But it was not true that Tom Hughes went back to the 
South as a slave. For this reason we deemed it our duty, 
at the close of the sermon, to rise and say — " Tom Hughes, 
formerly the slave of John P. Darg, on his release from pri- 
son recently, returned with his master to the South, NOT 
AS A SLAVE, preferring slavery to freedom, but AS A 
FREE MAN, under a promise of being permitted to enjoy 
his liberty and to live with his wife. I state this to prevent 
misapprehension."* This was all I said. If I had uttered a 
falsehood, the Lords Spiritual of the meeting would have 
cared very little about it ; but, as my statement was TRUE, 
and could not be contradicted, it gave great offence, and led 
to a determmation to exclude me hereafter from the meeting. 
Accordingly on Saturday last, I was waited upon by George 

* See note on pago 44. 



125 



T. Trimble and Nathaniel Merritt, who announced to me 
ofRcially, that the door-keepers had been instructed to pre- 
vent my entrance in future. I informed them that, previous 
to their visit, I had concluded that my mission to that meet- 
ing was ended, at least for the present ; and that, if they 
could tolerate a ministry so false, abusive and corrupt, I could 
only say I deeply regretted it. 

It may well be supposed, from this statement of facts, that 
the governing influences of the Rose-street meeting are no^ 
very deeply imbued with the genuine spirit of Quakerism. 
The character of too many of them, we fear, may be accu- 
rately described in four scriptural words — "GREEDY 
OF FILTHY LUCRE." And these men, whose ''godli- 
ness is gain,''^ have the effrontery to charge abolitionists 
with being actuated by pecuniary and sinister motives in all 
that they do to promote the anti-slavery cause I The cen- 
sure of such men is more to be desired than their approba- 
tion : the latter we should feel as a stain, but the former we 
regard as one of the strongest evidences that we are doing 
right. We rejoice to be "counted worthy" of suffering 
reproach and denunciation from such a quarter- " If they 
have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much 
more shall they call them of his household V 

We have given this exposition of the intolerance which 
prevails in one division of the Society of Friends in this cityi 
because the peculiarly aggravated form which it has as- 
sumed appeared to require it at our hands. It is due to 
Friends abroad that they should know the facts, that they 
may duly weigh their own responsibility for these exhibitions 
of tyranny. 

We have only to add, that the columns of the Standard are 
open to George F. White and his friends, if they should 
wish to make any reply to the foregoing statements and 
remarks. We court investigation in respect to all that we 
have said, and have no committee of vigilance to exclude 



126 

any one from the platform on which we stand. We do not 
claim a right to make statements implicating the character 
of others, and then to prevent them from opening their 
mouths in their own defence. 

P. S. This seems to be the proper place to state, that we 
have been visited by two leading Orthodox Friends of this 
city, who expressed their regret, that, in the correspondence, 
we had not been careful to state, distinctly, to which division 
of the Society of Friends George F. White belonged. We 
had supposed that he was so generally known, and the sepa- 
ration so well understood, that no one would be led into error 
on this point. They assured us, however, that many did 
not make the proper distinction, and that they and their 
friends were therefore liable to suffer from the disgraceful 
conduct of G. F. W. In these circumstances, justice would 
seem to require us to state, distinctly, thai he does not belong 
to the Orthodox Society. It is right that responsibility 
should rest only where it belongs. 



->> 



*» 14 01 



I 




■^^', \ ^' ,vA:^ 



'^' V 






^' •>:, 



"b^r 



.'o- * ^>'' "^, °M[. 










'*-<> r.O' ..• '^% "o ,,V 



;m%'' ^-'-^ . ^ '>rf«^% -^..^ .•<■* -■ 













iC^^ ^ 






<Jy^ ,o«o 



,-J^ . 






^•° /■% °fX%" -^' '- •-^^. 





■^.^^^' 



§ •* 






1^ -^- ¥'^^- 



r^^iH^ ^^ 



CON' 



GB&SS 








'^ 


i 


1 




1 






jt 





1 


1 


1 



